RE: those damn illegals

RE: those damn illegals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: those damn illegals (4/1/2008 9:39:54 PM)
Well I have a skewed perception because the area of Georgia I live in, is growing dramatically. I hate anywhere I have to shovel snow.

MissMorrigan -> RE: those damn illegals (4/1/2008 11:03:49 PM)
Thompson, having previously worked for local govt. (benefits section) I have to say that there are many people who prefer to take the easier route and opt for welfare. There's a whole generation of people that survive on meagre benefits, but who then don't have the stress and worries of mortgages/monthly rents b/c those benefits they receive include housing benefits and many others. The work IS there, some people choose to remain on benefits b/c they have gotten used to a non-structured life and use a multitude of excuses as to why they should remain on benefits. Increasing minimum wage will not radically resolve that problem. It's a frustrating situation and while I live in the UK, cannot see things being that much different than in the US. We share similar/same issues and I mentioned a few pages back how people born/raised in the UK were turning down salaries in excess of 20k and opting to remain on benefits, which is shocking, for while the average benefit for someone over the age of 25 is £59 per week dependent on circumstances, it's greatly reduced for those under 25 years of age, but when you add together free prescriptions, housing benefits, etc... it still is a more attractive package to people who feel t hat society owes them something and opt not to work. When situations like that are occurring, Thompson, and some businesses are reliant on having a labour work-force but aren't able to hire them for the above reasons, is it any wonder they are forced to hire cheap labour from abroad? It's either hire cheap labour or go out of business. If there is to be change, the entire system needs overhauling. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Increase the minimum wage so that citizens would be inclined to take jobs instead of welfare. Who among us would work for less than what welfare pays? The person who raises their hand for this question is less than disingenuous they are a god damn liar.

popeye1250 -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 1:18:54 AM)
Both Obama and Hillary favor amnesties for illegal aliens. That's why the Democrats are going to lose the election (again.) Only 22% of the voters are in favor of amnesties. Sounds to me like the Democrats are pissing into the wind again. Maybe they just enjoy losing.

caitlyn -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 5:26:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The market will take care of itself on both sides of the equation, cost and wages. It isn't 'voodoo economics' or 'trickle down'. It is one thing - pragmatic. You seem focused on wage, at the expense of all other parts of this issue. I suspect that if because you live in California ... the state with the most illegals. Here in Texas, the state just behind you for numbers of illegals, the bigger problem is getting workers. Produce workers in the RGV don't make sub-minimum ... they make around $8 an hour. Housing laborers in Houston make somewhere around $10 and hour and up ... slightly less in San Antonio and the Valley. I took a quick look at the classifieds in yesterday's Houston Cronicle, and noticed labor hauls were offering $7.50 an hour for general labor.

thompsonx -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 9:42:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan Thompson, having previously worked for local govt. (benefits section) I have to say that there are many people who prefer to take the easier route and opt for welfare. There's a whole generation of people that survive on meagre benefits, but who then don't have the stress and worries of mortgages/monthly rents b/c those benefits they receive include housing benefits and many others. The work IS there, some people choose to remain on benefits b/c they have gotten used to a non-structured life and use a multitude of excuses as to why they should remain on benefits. Increasing minimum wage will not radically resolve that problem. It's a frustrating situation and while I live in the UK, cannot see things being that much different than in the US. We share similar/same issues and I mentioned a few pages back how people born/raised in the UK were turning down salaries in excess of 20k and opting to remain on benefits, which is shocking, for while the average benefit for someone over the age of 25 is £59 per week dependent on circumstances, it's greatly reduced for those under 25 years of age, but when you add together free prescriptions, housing benefits, etc... it still is a more attractive package to people who feel t hat society owes them something and opt not to work. When situations like that are occurring, Thompson, and some businesses are reliant on having a labour work-force but aren't able to hire them for the above reasons, is it any wonder they are forced to hire cheap labour from abroad? It's either hire cheap labour or go out of business. If there is to be change, the entire system needs overhauling. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Increase the minimum wage so that citizens would be inclined to take jobs instead of welfare. Who among us would work for less than what welfare pays? The person who raises their hand for this question is less than disingenuous they are a god damn liar. MissMorrigan: I am not sure I am getting your point. If welfare (total benefits) is equal or close to what a person might make at a job then there is no incentive to take a job at that wage. If welfare and benefits are equal to say X and a job pays Y minus the costs involved in taking that job (child care,transportation,clothing etc) is anywhere close to X there is no incentive to take the job. My contention is that if you need "slave labor" to be in business then you really do not have a business. That is that if you cannot pay your labor a "living wage" and sell your product or service at a profit then you really do not have a business. I also realize that if company A can employ "slaves" and company B employees people at a living wage that company B will go out of business. Here in the U.S. I do not see 20 or even 30 thousand a year as a living wage. I know I would not work for those kind of wages. That being said I live on significantly less. But my housing is paid off and I produce most of my own food and fuel,my vehicles are paid off and I maintain them myself. I don't require a big screen TV. I don't have an ex wife payment or an ex kid payment and my drugs are supplied and delivered to me by a uniformed emissary of the federal government. No, I do not receive any form of public assistance. thompson

farglebargle -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 4:34:27 PM)
Why bother prosecuting illegal aliens when Bush, Cheney, Rice et. al. remain unindicted?

Smith117 -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 5:56:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why bother prosecuting illegal aliens when Bush, Cheney, Rice et. al. remain unindicted? Because whether or not the illegal immigrants have broken a law is a matter of fact. Whether or not Bush and the rest have is a matter of opinion.

thompsonx -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 6:44:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why bother prosecuting illegal aliens when Bush, Cheney, Rice et. al. remain unindicted? Because whether or not the illegal immigrants have broken a law is a matter of fact. Whether or not Bush and the rest have is a matter of opinion. Smith: Could you cite for us which statute the illegal aliens have broken? thompson

kittinSol -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 8:23:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why bother prosecuting illegal aliens when Bush, Cheney, Rice et. al. remain unindicted? Because whether or not the illegal immigrants have broken a law is a matter of fact. Whether or not Bush and the rest have is a matter of opinion. And the stand-up comedy nominee is... [sm=biggrin.gif].

farglebargle -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 8:24:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why bother prosecuting illegal aliens when Bush, Cheney, Rice et. al. remain unindicted? Because whether or not the illegal immigrants have broken a law is a matter of fact. Whether or not Bush and the rest have is a matter of opinion. You don't think Bush's lies are worse than Martha Stewart's or Marion Jones'? If Stewart and Jones went to prison for their lies, why not Bush?

Smith117 -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 8:58:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why bother prosecuting illegal aliens when Bush, Cheney, Rice et. al. remain unindicted? Because whether or not the illegal immigrants have broken a law is a matter of fact. Whether or not Bush and the rest have is a matter of opinion. You don't think Bush's lies are worse than Martha Stewart's or Marion Jones'? If Stewart and Jones went to prison for their lies, why not Bush? Being stupid isn't a crime. You can't prove he willfully lied. That's like trying to prove intent when the alleged intent wasn't carried out. If being stupid and making retarded choices were a crime, we'd have to do like Carlin says and block off 4 of our most square-shaped states to make them maximum security prisons.

thompsonx -> RE: those damn illegals (4/2/2008 9:00:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why bother prosecuting illegal aliens when Bush, Cheney, Rice et. al. remain unindicted? Because whether or not the illegal immigrants have broken a law is a matter of fact. Whether or not Bush and the rest have is a matter of opinion. And the stand-up comedy nominee is... [sm=biggrin.gif]. kS: Where do I vote? thompson

farglebargle -> RE: those damn illegals (4/3/2008 4:14:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 Being stupid isn't a crime. You can't prove he willfully lied. That's like trying to prove intent when the alleged intent wasn't carried out. "Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse" ring any bells? That aside, consider this: On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material. Can't get more willful than lying that a non-existent report confirms your false claims. Simply put, Bush KNEW he was lying, OR HAD CAUSE TO CONVEY ANY CAVEATS NEEDED TO ASSESS HIS CLAIMS ( that's what got the Enron crooks ) , and that his material falsehood would influence Congress and The People's oversight, in violation of 18 USC 371. So, Now that I've dismissed your "You can't prove INTENT", the question remains: "Why bother with "illegal aliens", when you're not prosecuting real murderers, fraudsters, etc... " And, yes -- I do consider the Bush Gang to be murderers: When someone dies as a consequence of another crime, you are held liable for that murder aren't you? So, don't we have 4000 charges of murder directly caused and subsequent to that violation of 18 USC 371, and 18 USC 1001. And the Loyal Bushies at the DOJ are having prayer meetings and pursuing whoremongers...

Smith117 -> RE: those damn illegals (4/3/2008 4:55:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Smith: Could you cite for us which statute the illegal aliens have broken? thompson I'm sure I could if I took the time to research it. I don't need to, however, since it's right there in the name......"illegal alien." Illegal = not legal ie. broken law.

Smith117 -> RE: those damn illegals (4/3/2008 5:00:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse" ring any bells? That aside, consider this: On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material. Can't get more willful than lying that a non-existent report confirms your false claims. Simply put, Bush KNEW he was lying, OR HAD CAUSE TO CONVEY ANY CAVEATS NEEDED TO ASSESS HIS CLAIMS ( that's what got the Enron crooks ) , and that his material falsehood would influence Congress and The People's oversight, in violation of 18 USC 371. So, Now that I've dismissed your "You can't prove INTENT", the question remains: "Why bother with "illegal aliens", when you're not prosecuting real murderers, fraudsters, etc... " And, yes -- I do consider the Bush Gang to be murderers: When someone dies as a consequence of another crime, you are held liable for that murder aren't you? So, don't we have 4000 charges of murder directly caused and subsequent to that violation of 18 USC 371, and 18 USC 1001. And the Loyal Bushies at the DOJ are having prayer meetings and pursuing whoremongers... And where your logic falls apart, I'm afraid, is all the people who claim bush is such an idiot he can't do anything on his own. He's got a full cabinet of staff and numerous people working for him. I highly doubt the man went into his own library, faked a document and then said "see? we have to go to war!" The more likely scenario is that all of the puppeteers around him handed him a document, said "Here junior, run out in front of the camera and tell them we have proof and we're going to war." Also, if the report wasn't accurate.....funny it took 6 years for the people who knew to step forward, isn't it? If I commit a murder and you know about it, not saying anything is just as bad as pulling the trigger yourself. "Accessory after the fact?" That tells me that if your favorite whipping boy is guilty....we're about to lose most of Washington D.C. to the prison system. Wanna know who's been consistent throughout all of this? Obama, our next president.

thompsonx -> RE: those damn illegals (4/3/2008 6:32:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Smith: Could you cite for us which statute the illegal aliens have broken? thompson I'm sure I could if I took the time to research it. I don't need to, however, since it's right there in the name......"illegal alien." Illegal = not legal ie. broken law. Smith; The question was WHICH broken law. So your answer is "I don't know" thank you thompson

Smith117 -> RE: those damn illegals (4/3/2008 10:08:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Smith; The question was WHICH broken law. So your answer is "I don't know" thank you thompson I'm pretty sure that I indicated that in my reply, but thanks for pointing out the obvious. The laws broken by the illegals are often many, and vary depending on the individual. The one common one between every illegal alien is the imigration law. I am not an immigration lawyer, so no, I can't quote you the exact statute and paragraph number, but that's hardly relevant. The fact is, there is a legal way to enter this country and those sneaking in are not following that method. Now, thompson, is there a pertinent point you'd like to make, or are you merely content in highlighting the fact that I'm not an immigration lawyer? Because honestly, if that's the entirety of your position, that's not really much of a position at all.

farglebargle -> RE: those damn illegals (4/3/2008 3:04:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 Obama, our next president. Just keep reaching for that rainbow!

farglebargle -> RE: those damn illegals (4/3/2008 3:12:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 And where your logic falls apart, I'm afraid, is all the people who claim bush is such an idiot he can't do anything on his own. Exactly how do other people's unsubstantiated claims in any way effect the coherence of my argument? My logic, despite your erroneous claim, doesn't "fall apart", on that basis, or any other. quote: He's got a full cabinet of staff and numerous people working for him. I highly doubt the man went into his own library, faked a document and then said "see? we have to go to war!" I never claimed he did. I said that he violated 18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1001 when he presented information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action. That constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371, and as gravy, also is a violation of the "Martha Stewart Law", 18 USC 1001, making material misstatements to US Gov't Agents... quote: The more likely scenario is that all of the puppeteers around him handed him a document, said "Here junior, run out in front of the camera and tell them we have proof and we're going to war." SO? That excuses him from legal liability how? If someone tells you to shoot someone else dead, and you CHOOSE TO OBEY THEM and commit murder, who is responsible for YOUR ACTIONS? quote: Also, if the report wasn't accurate..... IF. That's funny. Are you blind, or just can't ready. Bush LIED TO YOU. Now, you might be ok with people lying to you. And that's cool... It's your perrogative to forgive criminals who have ripped you off. But it is still unlawful.

Smith117 -> RE: those damn illegals (4/3/2008 3:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I said that he violated 18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1001 when he presented information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action. And congress voted to give him the authority to go to war. Where's your bile and hatred and call for prosecution for them? As for your beloved "18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1001"........we are talking about the US government, right? They've all been violating those codes for decades. And suddenly now you have a problem with it? Furthermore, Saddam, in a final interview said he intentionally allowed the world to think he had those weapons. He enjoyed "fooling" everyone because he didn't think we'd invade. I'd wager then, that all of what you blame on Bush, should really be blamed on the one truly responsible, Saddam himself. Had he complied with the sanctions and what he was told to do.....or even at zero hour, if he'd left the country, none of it would have ever happened. He called our bluff....we weren't bluffing. What amuses me to no end, is that nearly everyone agreed saddam needed to go. And yet they quibble over how. It's been 5 years since the "how" happened. He's gone. Deal with it. ORIGINAL: farglebargle If someone tells you to shoot someone else dead, and you CHOOSE TO OBEY THEM and commit murder, who is responsible for YOUR ACTIONS? I guess it's good for all of them that you aren't the authority on what constitutes murder. I don't consider death that occurs in battle to be murder. Murder is what the islamist radicals do. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle IF. That's funny. Are you blind, or just can't ready. Bush LIED TO YOU. Now, you might be ok with people lying to you. And that's cool... It's your perrogative to forgive criminals who have ripped you off. But it is still unlawful. Again I say to this, prove he lied. Don't just defame him anonymously online. I'm no Bush fan, but I'm sick of this rhetoric. He's out at the end of the year....it's over. It's done. Get over it.

Page: << < prev 16 17 18 [19] 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875