[hchutch]

If you REALLY believe I am disrupting the threads with a simple question, hit the abuse button and report it. Otherwise, you're spinning like a top to avoid dealing with the problem. The silence about comments like those Sam Francis made - comments he was FIRED from the Washington Times for - leads me to believe you have no objections to them, or you lack the courage to call them out on it.

You have no room to question my intellectual honesty. You have no room to accuse ME of disrupting this forum. And quite frankly, unless you are willing to file the abuse reports and state that FOR THE RECORD to the Moderators, I can only conclude that you are trying to silence the messenger, because WHEN that expose is posted, it will not just be Sam Francis whose comments get revealed for all to see and judge for themselves. It will not stop at just the contemptible comments, either. I will also reveal those who, like you, have either not noticed this stuff, or who have turned a blind eye to it.

Is that what you really want? Because that is what you will get.

[Sabertooth]

If you REALLY believe I am disrupting the threads with a simple question, hit the abuse button and report it.

I said you're trying, I didn't say you were any good at it.

Why are you so hesitant to post a stand-alone Sam Francis thread?

You have no room to question my intellectual honesty. You have no room to accuse ME of disrupting this forum. And quite frankly, unless you are willing to file the abuse reports and state that FOR THE RECORD to the Moderators, I can only conclude that you are trying to silence the messenger, because WHEN that expose is posted, it will not just be Sam Francis whose comments get revealed for all to see and judge for themselves.

How is not filing an abuse report an attempt to silence you?

How is an invitation to post a thread on which I'll appear to address whatever case you choose to make an attempt to silence you?

These two notions are so plainly silly that I'm quite content to repost them in context with your protestations of intellectual honesty.

It will not stop at just the contemptible comments, either. I will also reveal those who, like you, have either not noticed this stuff, or who have turned a blind eye to it.

Is that what you really want? Because that is what you will get.

I've lost count of how many times I've expressed my desire for you to post whatever thread you want about Sam Francis, and that I would be more than willing to look at and address your post.

Why would you doubt me? Go to town, hchutch. Flag me, when you do.

If you think I'm bluffing, bookmark this post and this thread, and see if that's the case.

Now, do you want to address my follow up questions to your own, actual comments regarding "immigration restrictionists on this thread, at #246?
(I said #244 earlier, that was a typo)

I'll repost them for you...

hchutch: In addition, if one seeks to LOWER the current quotas, is that not advocating restriction? Isn't "restrictionist" an appropriate adjective for those who advocate that position? Why do you object to that term if it is accurate?

Sabertooth: Well, let's carry your logic a little further... aren't the current immigration levels retrictive? In a sense, aren't any immigration laws at all, "restrictionist?"

If we have no restrictions at all on immigration, don't we have open borders?

So, is everyone who's not for open borders an "immigration restrictionist," in your lexicon?