You look ridiculous… but you should be used to that by now.
You really ought to address this, Cyclone.
Well now let’s take a look at what we need and do not need on this planet, shall we? Let’s get some basic ideas we can agree upon here.
Let’s see. Skin color who cares. LGBT, a good way to reduce over-population and find homes for homeless children. I realize this is too practical for religious types.
How about poor. Yes, we would like to double the population of poor so we could have more Catholics, Indians, Africans, and Chinese to take care of. Move this to the top of our list of things to do. Get these guys on the fast track for reproduction…whoops…they are the fast track in reproduction. We need to work on this. But, it would be nice to have more lookers like Queen Latifah when you think about it.
How about corporate executives. Throw money at them they will do anything, but we need to keep them on a short leash. Hey, we could do like the Chinese, if they screw up we execute them. Now, there is motivation to perform that works better than money.
How about the wealthy…pretty useless, don’t pay taxes and absorb many resources. Maybe the French could lend us a guillotine, with all those satellite channels we could probably get sponsors for the decapitations. Focus on one family a week showing why the blade will drop on them.
Middle class working class people. Might be nice to have more of those. Wonder how you create them, or do they automatically come along when jobs are created? Maybe it is too late for these folks.
Have I adequately answered your question, John?
Historically, yes. An abundance of high-wage, low-skill jobs can move masses of working-class people into middle-class status or something like it, as happened in America in the 1950s. But that is a very rare circumstance, and not one we must expect to see again in our lifetimes.
BrianGlutton, please stop, you are scaring me with common sense!!! 
This clip of Queen Latifah is for you. Didn’t have time to work it into my last post. This is not just fun. Give the words a thought. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUWb7Q4_uV0
Coincidently, the name of the movie is Chicago.
Just off hand, I would say that not only have you failed to answer the question, you have thrown a whole bunch of (rather bigoted) nonsense against the wall in the hope that something would stick while missing the point that he raised, completely.
I am sure that your deep fear of Catholics and darker skinned people stands you in good stead in your day-to-day life, but paranoia is not the same thing as analysis. You specifically claimed that we should impose population (birth) limits on world society based on projections of necessary labor. When presented the fact that we have no way to make such labor predictions, you went haring off on a tangent about people we should encourage to increase births and people we should kill.If you are not capable of understanding the question, I will be happy to close this thread until such time as you are capable of understanding the point John Mace made.
In the meantime, since everyone else in this thread is over the age of 13, please stop posting in silly colors and fonts.
[ /Moderating ]
Hmmm. I thought this had been addressed, but I guess I confused it with a different thread where a similar “order” had received a Mod’s attention.
Cyclone, do not tell other posters to “fuck off” lest the staff decides to tell you the same thing regarding your board participation.
[ /Moderating ]
A large part of my life has been devoted to making you, me, and our computers work better together. Good CAD guys and good machinists should make life better. I knew the anti-computer machinists and designers.
Well, we should all try to be accepting of differences. Take heart! One day you, too, will be able to solemnize your union with your beloved! 
Exactly. So no, Cyclone, you did not address the question of how to predict what employment needs we will have 20 - 60 years in the future.
Ahhh…a moderator who uses their position to expound their political agenda. Time for me to rethink my membership.
I find your approach rather sad. Usually it is the right who grabs onto name calling, and leaves their remarks unsupported by fact links. To see my fellow liberals fall on such tactics is irritating. We are better than that. A quick look at Google on almost any subject shows that the facts are usually on the side of liberals. Normally, I Google first, and then post, which is why I rarely lose on a thread.
My God man I live and work in Southern California, any bigot for skin color is in for a serious unhappiness. An illegal immigrant is a law breaker, it is not a matter of race. Illegal immigration is not a human rights issue. Will you even think to consider that the Catholic Church is missing the point on birth control by encouraging reproduction on an over crowded planet?
I understand The Straight Dope to be an enlightened community, not afraid to confront the facts on any issue. If I am wrong, I do not belong here. Platitudes and party line are a waste of time to post. Original thought is the key. I think both parties are lost in their talking points.
The Straight Dope is the second liberal message board I have belonged to. I quit the first because they turned out to be a group of foreign communists trying to twist America to their agenda. They actually placed American citizens, after illegal aliens, duh! I left the conservative boards because I was tired of wasting my time with name-calling. Moderate boards are ok if you want the Dems to line up on one side, and the Repubs on the other spouting their party lines.
I was recommended here. I have found some enlightened people here, and I enjoy the banter. Some could use a good explanation of the difference between a solid post based upon facts, and a rant. I intentionally irritate those who are comfortable with their politics because I force them into committing to a postion in hard-ball politics where the rubber meets the road. Many can not stand it when IT GETS REAL. I am doing them a service.
Let me tell you though, I will never kiss your ring, and if you want to hold your position over me. Just ban me now, and save us all the effort. I will just return to my home sites. I was beginning to believe up until this post that I had found another home site. Ahhh… so be it …there are nearly 200 political message boards on the internet.
You really ought to address this, Cyclone.
No, you’re not.
Be careful what you wish for. 
tomndebb’s instruction was entirely proper and his opinions as a poster are separate from his moderating. That’s generally how it works here. Irrespective of your political views, you’re not allowed to tell people to fuck off and using big fonts and colors does not prove your point.
What board was that? Serious question.
N.B.: I’ve encountered this misconception before . . . I suppose there are more liberal than conservative posters here – at least, on GD – but this is not a “liberal board” the way Democratic Underground is a liberal board. Any slant you see results from demographics. This board started as a sort of online auxiliary to Cecil Adams’ largely apolitical Straight Dope column (buy His books!), which is printed mostly in the free alternative weekly tabloids that live on their advertising and are most popular in funky bohemian urban centers. It grew from there, we have Dopers from the furthest hinterlands and all over the globe, now.
What board was that? Serious question.
No, you are exhibiting deeply undisciplined thinking. If you hang around here for any length of time, you will learn it doesn’t fly in GD. Every not-obviously-a-matter-of-record factual assertion will provoke our just and classic demand, “Cite?” Every “answer” you give that does not address the question will be called foul, and not by the Mods. Every logical flaw in your argument will be pointed out. If you make an “argument” so rambling and disjointed that the concept of logical structure doesn’t apply, you can be sure that will be pointed out. “Fighting Ignorance” ain’t just a motto here.
I have neither expounded upon nor espoused any political position in this thread.
I have called no one any names and the only facts I have asserted are to accurately recapitulate John Mace’s question and your irrelevant response. (That you now claim to hold views that differ from what you posted is not my error.)
I’m just a board Moderator who holds nothing “over” you. (And I am choosing to not respond to the straight line you have provided.)
If you simply stop posting, none of us will have to engage in any further effort of any sort.
I have no deep desire to ban you, but you will follow the rules if you choose to post on this board.
[ /Moderating ]
. . . Does that mean the floor is open for submissions?
Not in this forum.
Happy to address anything, reread the posts, but am unsure what precisely you would like to know. Please clarify. Thanks.
You do realize that any person may adopt any political label they choose. You are in no position to comment on this.
I was raised by conservative Republicans. I became the first Democrat in five generations, my brother was the second, and soon our cousins joined us. I have stated MANY times before that I agree with the Democratic Party on every issue except illegal immigration, (also I am miffed about the way the debt ceiling issue is being handled by both parties).
Yes, unlike Republican robots we Dems can and do think for ourselves.
I am not sure there are real Democratic liberals in this forum. No one has described themselves as such, and I seem to be the only one talking about citizenship as a requirement to participate in our democracy. I could care less what foreigners think about American domestic issues.
BrianGlutton I question your political credentials as a liberal. I think Bill Maher and Ed Schultz pretty much express America’s liberal point of view. Left wingnuts are as bad as rightie wing nuts. Political fringe elements are not pertinent to the American political discussion. The rest of us merely write them off. In fact I think people who go too far left or right are UnAmerican, which is why I read each poster in this thread so closely.