Immigration is Destroying America.

[Kondor3]

The answer to meeting short-term (until the Boomer generation dies off) demand is NOT to set the stage for still greater FUTURE demand - by admitting more eventual pensioners.

Does this sound familiar?

"we are not talking about a defined group of people sitting in a room waiting to die for your convenience, idiot. We are talking about population trends, wherein there are more and more elderly living longer and longer supported by fewer and fewer young people working. That equation leads to collapse long before enough people have died to satisfy your blood lust, comrade. "


Those were even my own words, not one of those scary links to graphs, studies, and research that you are so frightened of.

Yes, yes, yes... we all understand what a declining birth rate indicates, with respect to the number of people drawing an old-age pension, versus the number of people feeding into it.

Dog bites man.

This is not a harbinger of the general 'collapse' you threatened earlier.

 

[Unkotare]

Tell us HOW the sky is going to fall, if we fail to follow your advice...

The sky is not going to fall because we are not going to call a halt to LEGAL immigration despite your spineless, illogical rambling or the insane ranting of your loony friend.

We, like every other nation, are going to have to find creative ways of dealing with the coming demographic shift, but thanks to on-going immigration we will have somewhat more time to find solutions and see what works and what doesn't in other nations first. This is reality. Don't fear it, face it.

 

[Unkotare]

The answer to meeting short-term (until the Boomer generation dies off) demand is NOT to set the stage for still greater FUTURE demand - by admitting more eventual pensioners.

Does this sound familiar?

"we are not talking about a defined group of people sitting in a room waiting to die for your convenience, idiot. We are talking about population trends, wherein there are more and more elderly living longer and longer supported by fewer and fewer young people working. That equation leads to collapse long before enough people have died to satisfy your blood lust, comrade. "


Those were even my own words, not one of those scary links to graphs, studies, and research that you are so frightened of.

Yes, yes, yes... we all understand what a declining birth rate indicates, with respect to the number of people drawing an old-age pension, versus the number of people feeding into it.

Dog bites man.

This is not a harbinger of general 'collapse' as you indicated earlier.

I was referring to a "collapse" of the social security system as it is currently constituted, you moron.

 

[Kondor3]

Does this sound familiar?

"we are not talking about a defined group of people sitting in a room waiting to die for your convenience, idiot. We are talking about population trends, wherein there are more and more elderly living longer and longer supported by fewer and fewer young people working. That equation leads to collapse long before enough people have died to satisfy your blood lust, comrade. "


Those were even my own words, not one of those scary links to graphs, studies, and research that you are so frightened of.

Yes, yes, yes... we all understand what a declining birth rate indicates, with respect to the number of people drawing an old-age pension, versus the number of people feeding into it.

Dog bites man.

This is not a harbinger of general 'collapse' as you indicated earlier.

I was referring to a "collapse" of the social security system as it is currently constituted, you moron.

Ahhhhhh...

So it's not our SOCIETY that is going to collapse, should we throttle-back on Immigration...

It's only Social Security...

And YOU propose to keep Social Security afloat by adding substantial FUTURE load upon the system, in order to obtain short-term gain while the Boomers are still alive and collecting?

Rather like trying to put out a bonfire by throwing gasoline on it, by the look of things.

There are other ways to keep Social Security afloat without admitting large numbers of outsiders into our midst, only to face yet another Day of Reckoning in the future, because of our short-sightedness, and taking the easy way out, for short-term gain and a quick fix that our children and grandchildren and beyond will curse us for.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ummmmm... OK...

Job Retraining?

The W(orkforce) I(nvestment) A(ct)?

Because it gets people off their asses, back to school, and back out into the world, to make their own way again?

Passed during the Clinton Administration.

With bipartisan support.

And greatly expanded by the present Administration?

Does that count?

NO dumb ass. We don't need the feds to train us. What you are stupid? Why the hell should I pay you to train yourself when you don't effing work for me?

I wasn't inviting you to comment upon the validity of the program.

You asked me to identify a Democrat -leaning initiative that I supported, and asked me to reference the reason(s).

I gave you what you asked for, in all courtesy and good faith.

How does that constitute being a dumb-ass?

----------

Edited to add:

Oh, and, while I'm at it...

If you have a Skilled Job to fill...

Would you rather pay to train an American to do the job...

Or would you rather give that meal-ticket to a foreigner who already has the skill, and leave the American on-the-dole?

Paying much higher mid- to long-term costs, to keep that American on-the-dole.

That is the choice you face, in denouncing or supporting such programming.

Make up your mind, the ends justify the means or not. Stealing my income, to train your friends is not justified. My government using my income to import foreign workers to put me out of work is also not justified. Using my income to put people on the dole is further not justified.

None of your libtard policies are justified. NONE OF THEM. You deny the means is justified by the ends, then you provide yet another example of where you feel the ends justify the means. Then you ask what constitutes... It does not matter if you talk nice about taking my income, it does not matter if the spending is good, it's still justifying theft.

 

[Kondor3]

Tell us HOW the sky is going to fall, if we fail to follow your advice...

The sky is not going to fall because we are not going to call a halt to LEGAL immigration despite your spineless, illogical rambling or the insane ranting of your loony friend...

Cheap, low-brow cop-out.

I was pretty sure you didn't have it in you.

Looks like I was probably right.

BTW...

Spineless? hardly. If I was spineless, I would not be dragging your sorry bullying ass up and down the court.

Illogical? No more illogical than pouring more gasoline (future pension-load) upon the bonfire (social security system) in an attempt to extinguish it.

We, like every other nation, are going to have to find creative ways of dealing with the coming demographic shift, but thanks to on-going immigration we will have somewhat more time to find solutions and see what works and what doesn't in other nations first. This is reality. Don't fear it, face it.

We are, indeed, going to have to find new and creative ways of dealing with a changing age-demographic.

Immigration, however, is probably not the answer.

Not when we can't even take care of our own.

Nobody I know is proposing a halt to immigration.

I am merely one of many who perceive that Immigration's time has come and gone, and that we now must begin to do a better job of caring for our own, rather than taking-in endless waves of newcomers to add to the burden.

But that's a conversation that needs to occur on the national level... with full discussion and exploration of the pros and cons... a rational conversation, rather than strident, whiny, juvenile insistence in my-way-or-the-highway mode.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes, yes, yes... we all understand what a declining birth rate indicates, with respect to the number of people drawing an old-age pension, versus the number of people feeding into it.

Dog bites man.

This is not a harbinger of general 'collapse' as you indicated earlier.

I was referring to a "collapse" of the social security system as it is currently constituted, you moron.

Ahhhhhh...

So it's not our SOCIETY that is going to collapse, should we throttle-back on Immigration...

It's only Social Security....

We are not going to "throttle-back on immigration" and social security is going to run up against it sooner or later anyway. The fact of our continued immigration will just give us more time to change or replace that system once inevitability finally pumps some political courage into our representatives. Read again: We are NOT going to "throttle-back on immigration." At least not legal immigration. We need not, we should not, and we will not. Get busy accepting that.

 

[Unkotare]

Tell us HOW the sky is going to fall, if we fail to follow your advice...

The sky is not going to fall because we are not going to call a halt to LEGAL immigration despite your spineless, illogical rambling or the insane ranting of your loony friend...

Cheap, low-brow cop-out.

I have addressed all of your questions. You have responded by evading, repeating, and - of all things - attempting to discredit the empirical support of specific claims with FACT. You are not showering yourself with glory here. It's OK to stop digging.

 

[RKMBrown]

The sky is not going to fall because we are not going to call a halt to LEGAL immigration despite your spineless, illogical rambling or the insane ranting of your loony friend...

Cheap, low-brow cop-out.

I have addressed all of your questions. You have responded by evading, repeating, and - of all things - attempting to discredit the empirical support of specific claims with FACT. You are not showering yourself with glory here. It's OK to stop digging.

Clearly he needs more free government training.

 

[Kondor3]

NO dumb ass. We don't need the feds to train us. What you are stupid? Why the hell should I pay you to train yourself when you don't effing work for me?

I wasn't inviting you to comment upon the validity of the program.

You asked me to identify a Democrat -leaning initiative that I supported, and asked me to reference the reason(s).

I gave you what you asked for, in all courtesy and good faith.

How does that constitute being a dumb-ass?

----------

Edited to add:

Oh, and, while I'm at it...

If you have a Skilled Job to fill...

Would you rather pay to train an American to do the job...

Or would you rather give that meal-ticket to a foreigner who already has the skill, and leave the American on-the-dole?

Paying much higher mid- to long-term costs, to keep that American on-the-dole.

That is the choice you face, in denouncing or supporting such programming.

Make up your mind, the ends justify the means or not. Stealing my income, to train your friends is not justified. My government using my income to import foreign workers to put me out of work is also not justified. Using my income to put people on the dole is further not justified.

None of your libtard policies are justified. NONE OF THEM. You deny the means is justified by the ends, then you provide yet another example of where you feel the ends justify the means. Then you ask what constitutes... It does not matter if you talk nice about taking my income, it does not matter if the spending is good, it's still justifying theft.

I'll be very happy to address your Tax Payer Revolt angst, as soon as you extend to me the courtesy of answering my question, enlarged, above.

Under conditions in which you cannot fill a job with resources already on hand, do you choose to...

1. re-train an American to do that job

2. hire an immigrant who already has those skills, to do that job

Never mind the qualifiers and evasiveness and deflection, never mind all the happy horseshit about ends and means, or stealing tax dollars, or Libtards or welfare or yadda yadda yadda... just give a friggin' straight answer to the question, if you can, and if you dare.

I'm guessing that a fair number of our colleagues will also be interested to see how you answer.

Whose side are you on?

Choose.

I'll even lead-by-example and go first.

Me?

I choose the betterment of my own countrymen, every time.

I choose to re-train the American to do the job rather than bringing-in an immigrant.

You?

 

[Unkotare]

I'm guessing that a fair number of our colleagues will also be interested to see how you answer.

You didn't look up the definition of "colleague" like I told you to, did you?

 

[Kondor3]

I'm guessing that a fair number of our colleagues will also be interested to see how you answer.

You didn't look up the definition of "colleague" like I told you to, did you?

Patience... your turn is coming.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm guessing that a fair number of our colleagues will also be interested to see how you answer.

You didn't look up the definition of "colleague" like I told you to, did you?

Patience... your turn is coming.

You didn't, did you?

 

[Kondor3]

You didn't look up the definition of "colleague" like I told you to, did you?

Patience... your turn is coming.

You didn't, did you?

Nope.

No need to.

I've been up-to-speed on correct usage of the word for many years.

Someone you work with; someone you associate with; someone you deal with; someone participating in the same line-of-pursuit; an equal; a peer; a member of the same club or organization; someone devoted to similar or symmetrical goals; a colleague.

Feel free to scan Websters, Cambridge, Oxford, Dictionary.com and others. I'll be shocked to be proven wrong on that one, but, have at it, if it'll make you feel any better.

Why? What do you think it means?

 

[Unkotare]

Patience... your turn is coming.

You didn't, did you?

Nope.

No need to.

Yes, you need to. Go ahead.

 

[Kondor3]

You didn't, did you?

Nope.

No need to.

Yes, you need to. Go ahead.

Automatic gainsay isn't enough.

I have already given you my answer.

Where's yours?

 

[Unkotare]

Nope.

No need to.

Yes, you need to. Go ahead.

Automatic gainsay isn't enough.

I have already given you my answer.

Where's yours?

I did answer you. I instructed you to look up a term you do not understand well.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes, you need to. Go ahead.

Automatic gainsay isn't enough.

I have already given you my answer.

Where's yours?

I did answer you. I instructed you to look up a term you do not understand well.

Evasive, and inadequate to the task at-hand.

What is your understanding of what the word 'colleague' means, and its various mainstream usages?

Unless, of course, you don't have that answer at-hand, without looking it up yourself.

Oh, and, are we having fun yet, with this pointless pissing-contest?

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with immigration.

Or what RKMBrown is going to choose, in connection with either (1) re-training Americans to do special jobs, or (2) hiring immigrants with those skills, and thereby leaving Americans on-the-dole.

 

[Unkotare]

Automatic gainsay isn't enough.

I have already given you my answer.

Where's yours?

I did answer you. I instructed you to look up a term you do not understand well.

Evasive, and inadequate to the task at-hand.

What is your understanding of what the word 'colleague' means, and its various usages?

It's not a matter of 'my' understanding. Words have meanings. The central meaning of that word refers to people who work together or share the same profession. The way you've been trying to use it is misapplied. I'm trying to help you stop making yourself look so foolish, but you're not making it easy.

 

[Kondor3]

I did answer you. I instructed you to look up a term you do not understand well.

Evasive, and inadequate to the task at-hand.

What is your understanding of what the word 'colleague' means, and its various usages?

It's not a matter of 'my' understanding. Words have meanings. The central meaning of that word refers to people who work together or share the same profession. The way you've been trying to use it is misapplied. I'm trying to help you stop making yourself look so foolish, but you're not making it easy.

Words do, indeed, have meanings, and, oftentimes, multiple meanings, even within the framework of mainstream usage.

If you have not seen or heard the word utilized - repeatedly - in the context of association or line-of-pursuit or affiliation or membership - and used in a manner understood and accepted by large numbers of people - then you have led a far more sheltered and limited existence than most with whom I am acquainted.

I'm content that the commonplace usage employed here will meet with the approval of a sizable number of our fellow subscribers (colleagues, or peers, in this membership), and reasonably confident that I do not pick up extra 'foolhardy' points by relying on the expectation of such general approval, regarding the use of the word 'colleague' to refer to fellow subscribers - especially in light of its being conferred as a mark of respect and congeniality.