Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue
CatKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / May 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

A Day Without Immigrants

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
youngsopinions@aol.com - 01 May 2006 14:40 GMT
May 1st is a day for all illegal immigrants, and the garbage that
supports them, to boycott work, school, ect....What if I need a fresh
grapefruit?
Who's going to dry my car at the car-wash? What happens if I get hungry
and want to order Chinese food? Need a blow job from my neighborhood
Latina hooker?

These illegals really know how to hurt a guy; I can hardly wait for May
2nd.

Here is what to expect today in the "day without immigrants":

Average wait today in emergency rooms across the country will be about
7 minutes.

Your children will actually learn something today in school

The freshly picked fruit will have less tuberculosis on them

Less gum on the sidewalks

The legitimate workers replacing the illegals today will bring hundreds
of millions in additional tax revenue

Crime will drop dramatically

Sales of fuzzy dice will plummet putting most fuzzy dice manufacturers
out of business

The 68% of pregnant Latinas under 18 will actually get some exercise
today

"Low Rider" magazine will go out of business

Pat Buchanan in 2008!

Signature

----------

J Young
youngopinions@aol.com

youngopinions@aol.com - 01 May 2006 14:51 GMT
> May 1st is a day for all illegal immigrants, and the garbage that
> supports them, to boycott work, school, ect....What if I need a fresh
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Pat Buchanan in 2008!

Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e56g2000
cwe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "youngsopinions@aol.com" <youngsopinions@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.california,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,r
ec.pets.cats.health+behav,rec.music.beatles
Subject: A Day Without Immigrants
Date: 1 May 2006 06:40:24 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <1146490824.264943.284740@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.249.37.73
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1146490829 18143 127.0.0.1 (1 May 2006 13:40:29
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:40:29 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.249.37.73;
  posting-account=EftglA0AAAAyQikRvq6L0fr4ATOT5Tec
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3597105
alt.california:734247 alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1363445
rec.pets.cats.health+behav:448224 rec.music.beatles:993939

May 1st is a day for all illegal immigrants, and the garbage that
supports them, to boycott work, school, ect....What if I need a fresh
grapefruit?
Who's going to dry my car at the car-wash? What happens if I get hungry
and want to order Chinese food? Need a blow job from my neighborhood
Latina hooker?

These illegals really know how to hurt a guy; I can hardly wait for May
2nd.

Here is what to expect today in the "day without immigrants":

Average wait today in emergency rooms across the country will be about
7 minutes.

Your children will actually learn something today in school

The freshly picked fruit will have less tuberculosis on them

Less gum on the sidewalks

The legitimate workers replacing the illegals today will bring hundreds
of millions in additional tax revenue

Crime will drop dramatically

Sales of fuzzy dice will plummet putting most fuzzy dice manufacturers
out of business

The 68% of pregnant Latinas under 18 will actually get some exercise
today

"Low Rider" magazine will go out of business

Pat Buchanan in 2008!

Signature

----------

J Young
youngopinions@aol.com

lastcatstanding - 01 May 2006 14:51 GMT
>> May 1st is a day for all illegal immigrants, and the garbage that
>> supports them, to boycott work, school, ect....What if I need a fresh
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>
>> "Low Rider" magazine will go out of business

I agree with this post, and it's funny too.
youngsopinions@aol.com - 01 May 2006 16:42 GMT
Take a flying leap, troll.

My name is Jonathan David Young.
[Whether that dildo with the AOL address likes it or not.] Look in any
phonebook in America and you'll find about a dozen of us.I have never
pretended to be, nor do I have any reason to want to pretend to be
someone else[Let alone some pretentious loser]If that jack-a.s from AOL
doesn't like it:TOO BAD.

Change your name. I'll keep the one my father gave me.I do in the mean
time intend to continue to post in NG's in the style I'm most
comfortable.

Signature

----------

J Young
youngsopinions@hotmail.com

911 - 01 May 2006 17:32 GMT
>> May 1st is a day for all illegal immigrants, and the garbage that
>> supports them, to boycott work, school, ect....What if I need a fresh
[quoted text clipped - 97 lines]
>
> Pat Buchanan in 2008!

hahahahahaha!!!! What a pussy. Not only do you post a working email address
for spam harvesters to add to their list, you admit to being on the short
bus A.K.A. -  AOL. The short bus to the Internet. And icing on the cake,
you're gonna tell..... hahahahahahaha!!!!
LC - 01 May 2006 19:40 GMT
> hahahahahaha!!!! What a pussy. Not only do you post a working email
> address for spam harvesters to add to their list, you admit to being on
> the short bus A.K.A. -  AOL. The short bus to the Internet. And icing on
> the cake, you're gonna tell..... hahahahahahaha!!!!

Now this is funny.

There's a better than good chance this troll is forging himself, given his
desperate need for attention.

The loon creates sockpuppets on a regular basis.
To wit:

No list would be complete without adding the names "Paul Duca" and
"Parsifal" . Here they are together in an undated photo:
http://www.ambushmag.com/is1398/images/s10.jpg
From: <youngopinions@aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
References: <1146502649.503233.321860@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The 100 unsexiest men in the world
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:39:53 -0400
Message-ID: <I9ednWeKkpko2svZRVn-gA@giganews.com>

"Recently discovered in the archives."
http://www.ambushmag.com/is1398/images/s10.jpg
From: youngopinions@aol.com (J Young)
Newsgroups: houston.general,austin.general,tx.general
Subject: Pattie and Donnie: The Prom
Date: 25 Oct 2004 15:31:28 -0700
Message-ID: 9c2d0f9a.0410251431.51421c12@posting.google.com

"You have the audacity to lecture anyone about morals? Where were your
morals when you posed for this picture at the firehouse?
http://www.ambushmag.com/is1398/images/s10.jpg   For shame!!!"
From: youngopini...@aol.com (J Young)
Newsgroups:
talk.abortion,houston.general,alt.feminism,alt.abortion,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Our Not-So-Free Press
Date: 12 Nov 2004 16:29:38 -0800
Message-ID: <9c2d0f9a.0411121629.14fedfc0@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.132<AOL>

And *all* those sockpuppets:

http://www.ambushmag.com/is1398/images/s10.jpg
From: lappcatt@aol.com (IBen Getiner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Date: 25 Oct 2004 09:38:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: More Ugly Homosexuality
Message-ID: <20041025053856.00243.00001651@mb-m26.aol.com>

"There is a lowlife scumbag roaming Usenet with the nickname "Loose
Cannon". Harrassing and annoying decent people has become his/her M.O.
There is only one know photo of this shithead; taken from his/her
friend "Nails" profile of the two of them at a party last year. If
anyone can identify which "Loose Cannon" this really is, please let us
know."
http://www.ambushmag.com/is1398/images/s10.jpg
From: "Payback's a bitch" <superasswipe@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <1105153601.171474.67170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.139 <AOL>

http://www.ambushmag.com/is1398/images/s10.jpg
"He's the tall one on the left"
From: "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com>
Newsgroups:
austin.forsale,austin.general,austin.politics,tx.politics,tx.general
Subject: "Donald" at the Christmas party, 2002  [ for those who missed it ]
Date: 21 Jun 2005 22:28:11 -0700
Message-ID: <1119418091.441783.129100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.101.14<AOL>

LC~ J/IBen just keeps recycling the same old crap with new nyms.

"Iben uses J Young as one of his nicks, but with an AOL address in the
headers.  Recently, someone using a hotmail address has been spoofing J
Young/Iben from google.  That could be Iben himself, doing it to draw
attention to himself, or it could be someone else."
From: Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com>
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Subject: Re: News group falling apart
Reply-To: charlie_wil...@users.easynews.com
Message-ID: <7t6t32dumdp3oju5gmddv1alpqinu1a6sd@4ax.com>
IBen Getiner - 02 May 2006 07:37 GMT
Patricia wrote...

May 1st is the planned "Day Without an Immigrant" boycott by illegal
immigrants here in the United States. They plan on boycotting work,
thus showing how many menial jobs they provide cheap labor for. They
plan on boycotting our stores, thus showing how much money they provide
for the economy. I am fine with this tactic.

I have one suggestion: Please boycott our hospitals, schools, jails,
and highways.

Let us see what our health care system would be like without an
overcrowded emergency room full of illegal immigrants using it as a
free clinic to treat non-emergent ailments. Let us see what it would be
like to have people who the hospital actually expects to pay for
treatment. I wonder if the costs for health insurance would drop.

Let us see what it would be like to reduce the size of our classrooms.
Let us see what it would be like to have to spend taxpayer dollars to
teach in English only. Let us see if our schools test score averages
increase.

Let us see what it would be like to not be victimized by an illegal
immigrant and then have to pay for the incarceration of that illegal
immigrant. The Los Angeles County Jail system would be alleviated of
thousands of inmates. Those incarcerated might actually do 100% of
their sentences rather than the 10% that they have been doing.

Let us see what our highways would be like. Let us see if traffic is
reduced without their presence. Let us see if the number of unlicensed,
uninsured, unqualified motorists drops and the number of traffic
collisions also drops proportionally. Maybe our car insurance rates
would see a decrease as a result.

Maybe the May 1st  "Day Without an Immigrant" boycott should be
encouraged so the rest of the citizens can fully appreciate what
benefits and burdens illegal immigration creates.

IBen says, Cubans and South Americans=good. Mexicans and Porto
Ricans=bad. Start up the nuclear powered crematoriums. Run them
bastards 24 hours per day, 365 days per year (with me in charge). Yes
in-double-deedee

IBen Getiner
LC - 02 May 2006 16:52 GMT
> IBen says, Cubans and South Americans=good. Mexicans and Porto
> Ricans=bad. Start up the nuclear powered crematoriums. Run them
> bastards 24 hours per day, 365 days per year (with me in charge). Yes
> in-double-deedee

You're quite the kinky loon, J Young/IBen.
No doubt this too is a "forgery"?:

"I was typing some notes to you AZZHOLES when suddenly I noticed
something, my KAT was licking *MY BALLZ*. It felt good but that
SANDPAPER TONGUE wasn't all that. My question: " WHAT can I do to make
IT FEEL BETTER?"
IBen
From: "IBen Getiner" <lappcatt@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav,rec.music.beatles
Subject: Kitty love
Date: 30 Apr 2006 07:27:26 -0700
Message-ID: <1146407246.057683.157250@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.198

Forgery?

Not.

LC~ J/IBen's losing track of all his sockpuppets.

"He's just demonstrating his credentials as a redneck racist.  When I
saw the subject line, I just *knew* I could count on J.Young/IBen to
come up with something of that level of maturity and intellect."
Message-ID: <t02eq1ddtm0p6cnoh61vhv3o2um3nj6ds3@4ax.com>
Chimp - 01 May 2006 16:07 GMT
Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.

> May 1st is a day for all illegal immigrants, and the garbage that
> supports them, to boycott work, school, ect....What if I need a fresh
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Pat Buchanan in 2008!
Shardonay - 01 May 2006 16:13 GMT
> Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.

That's Labor Day.

>>May 1st is a day for all illegal immigrants, and the garbage that
>>supports them, to boycott work, school, ect....What if I need a fresh
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>>
>>Pat Buchanan in 2008!
Chimp - 01 May 2006 18:47 GMT
>> Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.
>
> That's Labor Day.

Its actually spelt "labour".

Happy to help :)
Magic Mood Jeep© - 01 May 2006 18:56 GMT
>>> Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.
>>
>> That's Labor Day.
>
> Its actually spelt "labour".

Only in your area, over here, we drop the "U" and pronounce it lay bore, not
lay bowr - we also drop an I and make it aluminum (a loom uh nuhm), not
aluminIum (al oo min ee uhm) - drops a syllable and makes it more
pronounceable.

> Happy to help :)

Don't see where you've been any help at all, actually.
Shardonay - 01 May 2006 19:39 GMT
>>>Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.
>>
>>That's Labor Day.
>
> Its actually spelt "labour".

Not since we kicked your a.s in 1776.
edrhodes@hotmail.com - 04 May 2006 13:10 GMT
> >>>Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Not since we kicked your a.s in 1776.

...and refreshed the lesson in 1812.
Char - 07 May 2006 16:47 GMT
> > > Its actually spelt "labour".
> >
> > Not since we kicked your a.s in 1776.
>
> ...and refreshed the lesson in 1812.

WRONG........
Here is a refresher on that day the British and Canadian troops kicked YOUR
a.s, ( USA)
Source: Canadian forums/history
http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=624

Learn it, love it......read>>>

     The Battle of Washington D.C.

     By 1814 the defenders of Canada had repelled five separate American
invasions, but they were running low on reenforcements and supplies to
withstand the American assaults.
     In Quebec City, the British Governor General of Canada Sir George
Prevost believed that he could not hold out much longer without more help
from Great Britain, he wrote desperate appeals to London to send him men and
supplies.

     In the summer of 1814 Sir George Prevost got his wish. Napoleon had
been defeated in Europe freeing up tens of thousands of British troops to
fight in North America, most of the British forces were shipped over to
Quebec City and Montreal and put at the disposal of Governor General
Prevost.

     Prevost had a reputation of being a hesitant commander but now he had
enough troops to go on the offensive.

     Governor General Prevost devised plans for his first full scale
invasion of the United States. He would personally lead the main invasion
force south from Montreal down the Richelieu River and into Lake Champlain,
if he could destroy the American naval facilities there he would turn his
attention to control of the great lakes and the Michigan territory which the
British had promised to the Indian people as a future country.

     The key to controling the lakes was the American naval base at Sackets
Harbour, and that is where President James Madison felt most vulnerable.

     While the United States government was concentrating on the defences
hundereds of miles away on it's northern border it neglected matters closer
to home.

     In the late summer of 1814 a British fleet was sent into Chesapeake
Bay to make a deversionary attack against Washington and Baltimore.

     When the lead British ships appeared in Chesapeake Bay in August 1814
the Americans had no idea where they were headed or what their intentions
were. The British sailed up the Patuxent River and moved ashore a force of
nearly five thousand crack troops fresh from the battle fields of Europe.

     In the American capitol there was a curious lack of alarm when word
arrived that the British invasion force had come ashore. At the new Congress
building there was no serious worry that the capitol of the United States
might be attacked. At the White house or President's Palace there was little
concern, the leaders of the United States had been assured by the Secretary
of War that there was no danger.

     John Armstrong assured the president that the British might attack
Baltimore but the young capitol was in no danger.

     Mr. Madison rode to the front to watch the up coming battle, he sent a
note to his wife:

     "My dearest I have passed among the troops who are in high spirits and
make a good appearance. The reports as to the enemy has varied from hour to
hour, the last and probally best information is that they are not very
strong and are without cavarly and artillery and of coarse they are not in a
condition to strike at Washington."

     Dolly Madison the presidents wife was now hearing differently. Mrs.
Madison knew what was a foot better than her husband the British moved
relentlessly on Washington knowing the effect it would have on the people of
the United States to have their nations capitol attacked.

     The British soon got word that the only troops standing between them
and Washington were militia units. The main British force moved into a
Washington suburb and after a brief battle the militia units broke and ran,
in the words of one American observer:

     "They ran like sheep being chased by dogs".

     Several hunderd U.S. sailors came ashore to fight but they could not
stop the British advance for very long.

     The military problems of Mr. Madison and his cabinet faced on the
Canadian frontier were now being repeated at the door of the nations
capitol.

     Once the battle had commenced Mr. Madison and the Secretaries of War
and State decided it would be better to withdraw to a position in the rear.

     Ahead of the President word shot back to Washington that all was not
well. The British invasion force was now clearly in on the capitol, the
presidents wife Dolly Madison dashes of a note to her sister:

     "Will you believe it my sister, we have a battle or skirmish near the
city. I am still within sounds of the cannons, Mr. Madison comes not. May
God protect us. Two messengers come in and asked me to leave the capitol, I
must stay here and wait for my husband."

     While Mrs. Madison showed great courage at the White House . Mr.
madison was tracking down the Secretary of War to find out what steps were
in the works to meet the final British assault, he was shocked and
disheartened to find out there was no plan.

     The 25th of August 1814, the British approached the heart of
Washington, march down Constitution Avenue bearing a flag of truce and
demand a surrender. Suddenly from a house window the flag of truce is fired
apon.

     The British troops rushed into the house where the shots had been
fired from, and put all who were found in the house to the sword and then
reduced the house to ashes. They went onto burn and destroy every building
connected to the government.

     While Washington burned, the president and his cabinet became
fugitives fleeing westward deep into the hills of Virginia. At the White
House Mrs. Madison was persuaded to leave also, and soon after the British
troops arrived.

     When these British soldiers who had been sent to destroy the
President's house entered they found a dinner that had been made for about
forty people. They ate every bit of food and drank every bottle of wine,
then started to destroy the White House.

     Washington D.C. the capitol of the United States was a city on fire,
what had started two years earlier as the invasion and conquest of Canada (a
subject territory) had now turned into a defensive war.
edrhodes@hotmail.com - 09 May 2006 04:44 GMT
> > > > Its actually spelt "labour".
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Source: Canadian forums/history
> http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=624

<history lesson taken to heart and then snipped>

...and yet, you're not still here! Did you simply decide out of the
goodness of your heart to leave your former colonies?
Magic Mood Jeep© - 01 May 2006 16:13 GMT
> Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.

Not in USofA, Deerie.  Here's it's like any other Monday.  We have to wait
until the last Monday in May, which is Memorial day (which also follows the
Most Watch Sproting Event of All Time, the Indianapolis 500)

>> May 1st is a day for all illegal immigrants, and the garbage that
>> supports them, to boycott work, school, ect....What if I need a fresh
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>> J Young
>> youngopinions@aol.com
Chimp - 01 May 2006 18:48 GMT
>> Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.
>
> Not in USofA, Deerie.  Here's it's like any other Monday.  We have to wait
> until the last Monday in May, which is Memorial day (which also follows
> the Most Watch Sproting Event of All Time, the Indianapolis 500)

So if its not the case in America, why are the "immigrants" taking a day
off?
Magic Mood Jeep© - 01 May 2006 18:52 GMT
>>> Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> So if its not the case in America, why are the "immigrants" taking a
> day off?

I guess you *have* had your head up your a.s, excuse me, _arse_, after all.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/01/immigrant.day/index.html
Chimp - 01 May 2006 19:21 GMT
> I guess you *have* had your head up your a.s, excuse me, _arse_, after
> all.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/01/immigrant.day/index.html

Ah, I'd not heard of this. I kinda got the impression they were taking the
day off cos it was the case in the "old country", didn't know there was a
protest on.

By the way, we pronounce it "lay-buh", not "lay-bowr".

h2h
Magic Mood Jeep© - 01 May 2006 20:18 GMT
>> I guess you *have* had your head up your a.s, excuse me, _arse_,
>> after all.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> h2h

So, you're in Massachusetts, not UK?
Chimp - 01 May 2006 22:19 GMT
>> h2h
>
> So, you're in Massachusetts, not UK?

Afraid not.
Magic Mood Jeep© - 01 May 2006 23:53 GMT
>>> h2h
>>
>> So, you're in Massachusetts, not UK?
>
> Afraid not.

Just a joke - the way you explained it, I read what would, to me, sound like
an Upper East Coast of the US accent  - Like Teddy Kennedy or his (deceased)
brothers, JFK & RFK, Jr..
Jim Higgins - 02 May 2006 00:53 GMT
>>>> h2h
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> like an Upper East Coast of the US accent  - Like Teddy Kennedy or his
> (deceased) brothers, JFK & RFK, Jr..

A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant - Rep. Tom Tancredo
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBlOTVlNDFkNTYwOTg4YWYxMThkZmE2MWZhMmVjMWM=
edrhodes@hotmail.com - 04 May 2006 13:13 GMT
> >>>> h2h
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> A Day Without an Illegal Immigrant - Rep. Tom Tancredo

Actually, it was supposed to be a day without any of the Latino
workforce since the "legals" also stayed out in support of the
"illegals."

(Here's a news flash, not every Latino in the country is an "illegal!"
Just thought you'd like to know!)

Me? I just didn't go to the convenience stores in my area that day.
Runnnerr - 04 May 2006 22:52 GMT
> > >>>> h2h
> > >>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Me? I just didn't go to the convenience stores in my area that day.

Are there any so-called Latinos that can actually speak Latin? Or is it
just some kind of mass affectation that these people have?
Magic Mood Jeep© - 04 May 2006 23:44 GMT
>>>>>>> h2h
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> it
> just some kind of mass affectation that these people have?

There's an interview somewhere with Gene Simmons (he of long-tongued KISS
fame), where he stated that he grew up with a lot of beautiful dark-haired
'Spanish girls' in the neighborhood - and he explained back in his day they
didn't call them Latinos - they aren't Latin, are they?  They were Spanish -
so that's what they were called.

Somehow they went from being called Spanish, to Hispanic, to Latino....
Runnnerr - 04 May 2006 23:59 GMT
> >>>>>>> h2h
> >>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Somehow they went from being called Spanish, to Hispanic, to Latino....

Most of them aren't even Spanish. Spanish people come only from Spain.
It's analogous to calling myself English or British because English is
my language.

It must be some sort of massive self-esteem thing with them.
Runnnerr - 05 May 2006 00:00 GMT
> >>>>>>> h2h
> >>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Somehow they went from being called Spanish, to Hispanic, to Latino....

Most of them aren't even Spanish. Spanish people come only from Spain.
It's analogous to calling myself English or British because English is
my language.

It must be some sort of massive self-esteem thing with them.
Juice - 05 May 2006 00:02 GMT
> There's an interview somewhere with Gene Simmons (he of long-tongued KISS
> fame), where he stated that he grew up with a lot of beautiful dark-haired
> 'Spanish girls' in the neighborhood - and he explained back in his day they
> didn't call them Latinos - they aren't Latin, are they?  They were Spanish -
> so that's what they were called.

uh, just wanted to letchew you know ya'll sound like a couple of nerds
Jerry Okamura - 05 May 2006 00:45 GMT
edrhodes@hotmail.com wrote:
> Jim Higgins wrote:
> > > Chimp wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Me? I just didn't go to the convenience stores in my area that day.

Are there any so-called Latinos that can actually speak Latin? Or is it
just some kind of mass affectation that these people have?

Very few people actually speak Latin.
edrhodes@hotmail.com - 04 May 2006 13:11 GMT
> >> I guess you *have* had your head up your a.s, excuse me, _arse_,
> >> after all.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> So, you're in Massachusetts, not UK?

"Chow-duh, CHOW-DUH! Say it right!"
hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com - 02 May 2006 04:44 GMT
>So if its not the case in America, why are the "immigrants" taking a day
>off?

It's not a holiday but rather a strike or protest by mainly illegal
aliens.

-m
The EIB Factor - 01 May 2006 16:44 GMT
>Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.

Where the hell do you get your information? May Day is a Socialist,
Communist and Anarchist  holiday. In other words it is a Liberal
holiday.

-
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us,
he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it
is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed,
or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's
becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an
American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have
room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red
flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization,
just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we
are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that
is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Runnnerr - 01 May 2006 16:51 GMT
> >Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Oh my goodness!! Could Teddy have been saying that the attitude of
"we're coming to your country, now learn our language" is wrong,
backwards and un-American?? Imagine that!!

It's so.... racist, isn't it?
Maxwell Edison - 01 May 2006 16:53 GMT
> >Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.
> >
> Where the hell do you get your information? May Day is a Socialist,
> Communist and Anarchist  holiday. In other words it is a Liberal
> holiday.

As celebrated by the majority of nations throughout the world.

I don't know about you, but I am taking the day off and am not going to
buy anything.

Happy May Day, everybody!

Signature

"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action."  -  Johann
Goethe

T - 02 May 2006 02:26 GMT
> Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.

No but I did get invited to a May Breakfast. Otherwise today was a crazy
day, culminated by my after work commute taking an hour and a half vs.
the usual half hour.

Why? Because the police decided to block off a majority of the downtown
area that I pass through. Nice of them. I did manage to get some video
of the protestors.

What every seems to be missing here is the keyword being left out of the
argument. That keyword is 'illegal'.

My proposal to this is to issue green cards to every one of the 12
million plus with the stipulation that they become naturalized citizens
withing two to three years, otherwise they're sent back to their country
of origin.

But being that the main group affected by this is Mexican, I propose we
strengthen our border. Land mines, sniper towers, etc. Make a strong
disincentive for illegally coming to the United States across the U.S. /
Mexico border.

While we're at it, why don't we crack down on the government of Mexico
that prefers to leave most of their citizens in poverty.
Jim Higgins - 02 May 2006 02:31 GMT
>> Dude, its May Day. Everyone gets the day off, illegal or not.
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> While we're at it, why don't we crack down on the government of Mexico
> that prefers to leave most of their citizens in poverty.

Sound idea, at last the RCC finally comes around.
Toni from T.O. - 02 May 2006 02:59 GMT
> My proposal to this is to issue green cards to every one of the 12
> million plus with the stipulation that they become naturalized citizens
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> While we're at it, why don't we crack down on the government of Mexico
> that prefers to leave most of their citizens in poverty.

Why, because they're getting rich in the US?  I'm pretty sure most Americans
profit unwittingly through the exploitation of illegal immigrant labour.
Who else is going to pick the fruit, sling the hash and do all the other joe
jobs for cheap?

Toni from T.O.
ghugle - 02 May 2006 03:54 GMT
Who picked our fruit in 1890? Who hung drywall in 1942? And who washes
the dishes in cafes in France. As long as immigration stays the same
Republicans will never help the real poor Americans(because it will
benefit the illegals-gads)
Toni from T.O. - 03 May 2006 00:38 GMT
> Who picked our fruit in 1890?

The Irish?  :-)

Who hung drywall in 1942? And who washes
> the dishes in cafes in France.

Immigrants.  Illegal or otherwise.

As long as immigration stays the same
> Republicans will never help the real poor Americans(because it will
> benefit the illegals-gads)

I don't follow the logic.  And what's a gad?
Breakfast - 03 May 2006 05:47 GMT
> I don't follow the logic.  And what's a gad?

Gad is a concept by which we measure our pain.

I'll say it again.
Barb - 03 May 2006 10:58 GMT
France, Toni?  Good analogy.  Underpaid immigrants tore French cities apart
a few months ago, blowing up cars and burning down schools.

--
Barb
Of course I don't look busy,
I did it right the first time.
Toni from T.O. - 03 May 2006 22:09 GMT
> France, Toni?  Good analogy.  Underpaid immigrants tore French cities apart
> a few months ago, blowing up cars and burning down schools.

Yes, it is.  Underpaid LEGAL immigrants who are systemically discriminated
against...the French are happy to exploit their labour, but won't treat them
equally.  So much for "Liberte, egalite et fraternite". The US should look
to France as a caution.
Barb - 04 May 2006 12:52 GMT
Well. you are right, there.  France should serve as a warning to the US
regarding having an underclass of underpaid workers.  I don't believe most
of us benefit from these low wage workers.  Where I live homes aren't
cheaper because they are built by men collected off street corners.  The
landscaper for our townhouses told us one year he was going to hire all
English speakers.  Apparently some people complained previously.  He did not
charge us more because he had not charged us less when he hired non-English
speakers.  Food will not cost more than the consumer can bear, regardless
how much the labor costs.  Price is dictated by supply and demand.

--
Barb
Of course I don't look busy,
I did it right the first time.
Toni from T.O. - 04 May 2006 22:24 GMT
> Well. you are right, there.  France should serve as a warning to the US
> regarding having an underclass of underpaid workers.  I don't believe most
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> speakers.  Food will not cost more than the consumer can bear, regardless
> how much the labor costs.  Price is dictated by supply and demand.

I don't know much about economics.  But how elastic is the demand for food?
People have to eat!  If they have to pay more, they'll have less
discretionary income to spend.  If the producers have to pay more, but
prices to consumers aren't raised, someone is taking a loss in profit.
Either way, there would be an impact.
Seth Jackson - 06 May 2006 00:54 GMT
>  Food will not cost more than the consumer can bear, regardless
>> how much the labor costs.  Price is dictated by supply and demand.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>prices to consumers aren't raised, someone is taking a loss in profit.
>Either way, there would be an impact.

If the producers could make more money by raising prices, why would
they wait till production costs go up?  They'd do it now.   Supply and
demand theory says that the current price is the price at which the
producers believe they can maximize profit.  

If they were to raise prices, they'd sell less.  This would be true
regardless of the wages they paid their workers.
omarenoryt@aol.com - 04 May 2006 22:43 GMT
> > France, Toni?  Good analogy.  Underpaid immigrants tore French cities
> apart
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> equally.  So much for "Liberte, egalite et fraternite". The US should look
> to France as a caution.

I love when liberal douches make excuses for riotting filth, especially
when they're Muslime. Continue sobbing hysterically, idiot :)
Toni from T.O. - 05 May 2006 01:10 GMT
> I love when liberal douches make excuses for riotting filth, especially
> when they're Muslime. Continue sobbing hysterically, idiot :)

I love it when conservatives have to descend to namecalling and racism to
try to make a point.
edrhodes@hotmail.com - 05 May 2006 14:39 GMT
> > I love when liberal douches make excuses for riotting filth, especially
> > when they're Muslime. Continue sobbing hysterically, idiot :)
>
> I love it when conservatives have to descend to namecalling and racism to
> try to make a point.

He doesn't have to. That's his normal mode of response!
omarenoryt@aol.com - 04 May 2006 22:45 GMT
> > My proposal to this is to issue green cards to every one of the 12
> > million plus with the stipulation that they become naturalized citizens
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Who else is going to pick the fruit, sling the hash and do all the other joe
> jobs for cheap?

The same people who did it before the illegal alien invasion, duh. Try
coming up with something less hilariously cliched in the future.

> Toni from T.O.
Jerry Okamura - 05 May 2006 00:43 GMT
>> > My proposal to this is to issue green cards to every one of the 12
>> > million plus with the stipulation that they become naturalized citizens
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> The same people who did it before the illegal alien invasion, duh. Try
> coming up with something less hilariously cliched in the future.

Higher labor cost translates to higher product prices.  And no, what you
said is not necessarily true.  Low paying jobs are filled by people who do
not have a good education.  Rather than save the low paying jobs for the
lwest common denominator, perhaps you should think about having the low
paying jobs done by people, like the illegals, who generally are not well
educated, and leave the better paying jobs for those who do have a good
education.
Seth Jackson - 06 May 2006 00:56 GMT
>> The same people who did it before the illegal alien invasion, duh. Try
>> coming up with something less hilariously cliched in the future.
>>>
>Higher labor cost translates to higher product prices.  

Not necessarily.

>And no, what you
>said is not necessarily true.  Low paying jobs are filled by people who do
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>educated, and leave the better paying jobs for those who do have a good
>education.

What about the uneducated citizens who can no longer find jobs?  The
illegals allow businesses to circumvent minimum wage laws.
Jerry Okamura - 06 May 2006 01:49 GMT
>>> The same people who did it before the illegal alien invasion, duh. Try
>>> coming up with something less hilariously cliched in the future.
>>>>
>>Higher labor cost translates to higher product prices.
>
> Not necessarily.

When does that not apply?

>>And no, what you
>>said is not necessarily true.  Low paying jobs are filled by people who do
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> What about the uneducated citizens who can no longer find jobs?  The
> illegals allow businesses to circumvent minimum wage laws.

"uneducated workers" made a "choice" not to take advantage of the free high
school education provided to them by the government.  And no, unless you are
downright incomptent, everyone can get a job, it may not be the job you want
to do, but you can get a job if that is what you want.  As for minimu wage
jobs, they are filled mostly by people who did not take advantage of the
free high school education that was provided to them.  Second, a minimum
wage job is an entry level job.  Once you get that job, what happens then is
up to the individual.  If they do a good job, they will soon be earning more
than the minimum wage.  Besides, this whole concpept of a minimu wage is
like a ponzi scheme.  Let us for the sake a discussion say that we reaise
the minimum wage.  What happens then?  Well, that means someone who is
working, is now earning a minimum wage, where they were not earning the
minimum wage before the change occurred.  So, a business is not going to
reward the new worker at the same level as the old worker.  So, they will
most likely give the old worker who is now earning the minimum wage a raise.
That in turns affects the next one higher up on the wage scale.  Over time,
everyones wages are increased, the cost of living then increases, and we
start the whole process over again, raising the minimum wage, thereby
inflating the wages up the ladder.  But that is not all that happens.  What
does a business do, when they find their cost of doing business increases?
Well, they raise they raise the price of the product or services they sell,
which then increases the cost of living for everyone in the chain, which in
turn puts added pressure to once again raise the minimu wage.
Seth Jackson - 06 May 2006 08:38 GMT
>>>> The same people who did it before the illegal alien invasion, duh. Try
>>>> coming up with something less hilariously cliched in the future.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>When does that not apply?

When the supply/demand curve is such that higher prices would result
in lower profits.

>>>And no, what you
>>>said is not necessarily true.  Low paying jobs are filled by people who do
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>"uneducated workers" made a "choice" not to take advantage of the free high
>school education provided to them by the government.  

No.  A high school education is irrelevant for the types of jobs we're
talking about.  

>And no, unless you are
>downright incomptent, everyone can get a job, it may not be the job you want
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>up to the individual.  If they do a good job, they will soon be earning more
>than the minimum wage.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the jobs being filled by
illegals and the people who would have otherwise taken them.  

>  Besides, this whole concpept of a minimu wage is
>like a ponzi scheme.  Let us for the sake a discussion say that we reaise
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>which then increases the cost of living for everyone in the chain, which in
>turn puts added pressure to once again raise the minimu wage.

This sounds like a plausible theory, but is there any real proof that
it actually works out this way?   There are assumptions here that
certainly are questionable.
Jerry Okamura - 06 May 2006 22:00 GMT
>>>>> The same people who did it before the illegal alien invasion, duh. Try
>>>>> coming up with something less hilariously cliched in the future.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> When the supply/demand curve is such that higher prices would result
> in lower profits.

What products that does apply to?

>>>>And no, what you
>>>>said is not necessarily true.  Low paying jobs are filled by people who
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> No.  A high school education is irrelevant for the types of jobs we're
> talking about.

Why is it irrelevant.  Would a college educated person be working the
fields, or working as a plumber, or a carpenter, for working as a
housekeeper in a hotel, repairing cars?

>>And no, unless you are
>>downright incomptent, everyone can get a job, it may not be the job you
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> You're making a lot of assumptions about the jobs being filled by
> illegals and the people who would have otherwise taken them.

Not assumptions, what actually happens.

>>  Besides, this whole concpept of a minimu wage is
>>like a ponzi scheme.  Let us for the sake a discussion say that we reaise
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> it actually works out this way?   There are assumptions here that
> certainly are questionable.

How about some common sense?
Seth Jackson - 07 May 2006 00:03 GMT
>>>>>> The same people who did it before the illegal alien invasion, duh. Try
>>>>>> coming up with something less hilariously cliched in the future.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>What products that does apply to?

Not being the product manager for a variety of products, I can't be
expected to have access to that data.  But since supply/demand sets
prices, we should assume that most products are the market are as
close to optimally priced as their sellers can get.  GM wouldn't sell
a car for $20,000 if they could make more selling it for $21,000.
Thus, a higher price would result in a lower profit.

Of course, if costs increased, the supply curve would also shift.
The result would likely be higher prices for many products.  So, I
stand corrected.

>>>>>And no, what you
>>>>>said is not necessarily true.  Low paying jobs are filled by people who
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>fields, or working as a plumber, or a carpenter, for working as a
>housekeeper in a hotel, repairing cars?

Why are you bringing college into this when we're talking about high
school?  A high school education doesn't prepare you to work in
certain trades, in agriculture, in construction, in hospitality, etc.
So, it's irrelevant whether these people finished high school or not.

Anyway, whether they chose to go to school or not is entirely beside
the point.   The point is that illegal aliens are taking jobs at
sub-minimum wage that could have otherwise been filled by American
citizens.  

>>>And no, unless you are
>>>downright incomptent, everyone can get a job, it may not be the job you
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Not assumptions, what actually happens.

Whatever.  Bottom line is that illegals are taking jobs that Americans
could have filled, only they're doing it for less than the minimum
wage, in violation of the law.  Tax-free.

>>>  Besides, this whole concpept of a minimu wage is
>>>like a ponzi scheme.  Let us for the sake a discussion say that we reaise
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>How about some common sense?

As I said, it sounds like a plausible theory.  It's not the only
plausible theory.  Like any other theory, research would be required
to test it.
Jerry Okamura - 07 May 2006 00:36 GMT
>>>>>>> The same people who did it before the illegal alien invasion, duh.
>>>>>>> Try
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> The result would likely be higher prices for many products.  So, I
> stand corrected.

So, back to my orginal question.  What products applies to the comment
above?

>>>>>>And no, what you
>>>>>>said is not necessarily true.  Low paying jobs are filled by people
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>>> No.  A high school education is irrelevant for the types of jobs we're
>>> talking about.

Why is it irrelevant?  Who works at these lower paying jobs?

>>Why is it irrelevant.  Would a college educated person be working the
>>fields, or working as a plumber, or a carpenter, for working as a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> certain trades, in agriculture, in construction, in hospitality, etc.
> So, it's irrelevant whether these people finished high school or not.

Because they are linked.  A person who has only a high school education will
work in the kind of jobs that require a level of knowledge that a high
school education is suppose to prepare the student for.  A college education
will give a person the opportunity to work in a job that a college education
is suppose to prepare the student for.  And a high school education does
prepare you to work in certain trades.  It is rather difficult to learn a
trade for instance if you cannot read.

> Anyway, whether they chose to go to school or not is entirely beside
> the point.   The point is that illegal aliens are taking jobs at
> sub-minimum wage that could have otherwise been filled by American
> citizens.

And my question is, what jobs are they taking?  Are they competing for the
jobs that college educated people do, or competing for jobs that are done by
high school graduates, or competing for jobs that are done by those who have
not completed high school.

>>>>And no, unless you are
>>>>downright incomptent, everyone can get a job, it may not be the job you
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> could have filled, only they're doing it for less than the minimum
> wage, in violation of the law.  Tax-free.

"Could and would" are two different words.  Yes, if the illegals did not do
the jobs, then American "could" do those jobs, but the quesiton is, would
they do those jobs.  How do you know that they are doing the jobs for less
than minimum wage?  Do you have any data to back up that statement?  And
yes, some probably do avoid paying their income tax, but they do not avoid
paying other taxes.  But so does those who are legal residents, who work in
the underground economy.  So does those who work for tips, they too do not
pay the taxes they should pay.  So do about ten percent of the people who
life tax returns who never pay the taxes owed.

>>>>  Besides, this whole concpept of a minimu wage is
>>>>like a ponzi scheme.  Let us for the sake a discussion say that we
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> plausible theory.  Like any other theory, research would be required
> to test it.

The do the research and you will find I am right.
Seth Jackson - 07 May 2006 08:36 GMT
>> Of course, if costs increased, the supply curve would also shift.
>> The result would likely be higher prices for many products.  So, I
>> stand corrected.
>
>So, back to my orginal question.  What products applies to the comment
>above?

What would be the point of the original question when I just said that
I stand corrected?

>>>>>>>And no, what you
>>>>>>>said is not necessarily true.  Low paying jobs are filled by people
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>Why is it irrelevant?  Who works at these lower paying jobs?

Obviously, people without the skills to work at higher paying jobs.

>>>Why is it irrelevant.  Would a college educated person be working the
>>>fields, or working as a plumber, or a carpenter, for working as a
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>prepare you to work in certain trades.  It is rather difficult to learn a
>trade for instance if you cannot read.

I don't know about you, but where I come from, they teach reading and
arithmetic in grade school.

>> Anyway, whether they chose to go to school or not is entirely beside
>> the point.   The point is that illegal aliens are taking jobs at
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>high school graduates, or competing for jobs that are done by those who have
>not completed high school.

I don't know why you're asking this.  Isn't the answer rather obvious?

>>>> You're making a lot of assumptions about the jobs being filled by
>>>> illegals and the people who would have otherwise taken them.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>the jobs, then American "could" do those jobs, but the quesiton is, would
>they do those jobs.  

If they're paid enough, I can't think of a good reason why they
wouldn't.  Can you?

>How do you know that they are doing the jobs for less
>than minimum wage?  Do you have any data to back up that statement?

I can'r recall offhand where I got the information.   Do you have any
data that they don't?   Do you believe that the people who hire
illegals are conscientiously adhering to minimum wage law?

> And
>yes, some probably do avoid paying their income tax, but they do not avoid
>paying other taxes.  

Some probably do?   These people are hired off the street, off the
card, with no W-2s, no 1099s, and no withholding.   Ya think the
majority of them are paying income taxes?

>But so does those who are legal residents, who work in
>the underground economy.  So does those who work for tips, they too do not
>pay the taxes they should pay.  So do about ten percent of the people who
>life tax returns who never pay the taxes owed.

Some Americans get away with it, so illegals should, too.  Cool.  

>>>>>  Besides, this whole concpept of a minimu wage is
>>>>>like a ponzi scheme.  Let us for the sake a discussion say that we
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>The do the research and you will find I am right.

Not the way it works.  You made a claim.  The burden of proof is on
you.
Toni from T.O. - 07 May 2006 01:03 GMT
> Anyway, whether they chose to go to school or not is entirely beside
> the point.   The point is that illegal aliens are taking jobs at
> sub-minimum wage that could have otherwise been filled by American
> citizens.

Who's doing the paying?  Maybe the state should go after those people for
encouraging illegal labour.
Seth Jackson - 07 May 2006 08:23 GMT
>> Anyway, whether they chose to go to school or not is entirely beside
>> the point.   The point is that illegal aliens are taking jobs at
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Who's doing the paying?  Maybe the state should go after those people for
>encouraging illegal labour.

I agree.
Jerry Okamura - 07 May 2006 19:16 GMT
>> Anyway, whether they chose to go to school or not is entirely beside
>> the point.   The point is that illegal aliens are taking jobs at
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Who's doing the paying?  Maybe the state should go after those people for
> encouraging illegal labour.

Yep, and the state should go after those who work in the underground
economy.
friesian@zoocrewphoto.com - 06 May 2006 11:09 GMT
>  Let us for the sake a discussion say that we reaise
> the minimum wage.  What happens then?  Well, that means someone who is
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> which then increases the cost of living for everyone in the chain, which in
> turn puts added pressure to once again raise the minimu wage.

Sometimes, you get a mixed reaction. The minimum wage goes up, but not
everybody's wage. For example, I work at a grocery store. The minimum
wage has gone up, and is now higher than the starting wage for several
positions. So, they get paid the minimum wage to start in jobs that
used to be higher than the lowest position. And only the levels that
would be be below the new minimum wage got any adjustment.

At the same time, costs did go up for the store. So prices went up too.

In my case, my wage did not go up. Actually, my sunday pay was lowered
in the last contract, and I now have a deduction taken out each week
for my health care. so, my paycheck went down. But prices went up. So,
my buying power went down. Cost of living went up, but my wage didn't.
I actually made a lot less in 2006 than I did in 2005. Between the wage
loss and the deductions, my take home pay was $4,000 less.

I'm in a group for budgeting and we discuss food prices. Places with
lower minimum wages have much better food prices than areas with higher
minimum wages. I realize that people on minimum wage would like the pay
to be higher. But it doesn't seem to beneffit anybody else. I'm in a
state with a high minimum wage, but my own wage is not much higher,
even after 17 years with the company. And I have to deal with higher
food prices, high gas prices, etc.

OB cats.  Both of my cats require special diets, so I have to spend a
lot of money on their food as well. Kira gets a senior food, canned
food, and a supplement. Jay Jay gets the really spendy food. I ran out
for a couple days and let him eat the other food (which he already
nibbles on), and boy did the kitty litter stink. Talk about extortion.
Pay up or deal with Mr. Stinky.
Jerry Okamura - 06 May 2006 22:06 GMT
>>  Let us for the sake a discussion say that we reaise
>> the minimum wage.  What happens then?  Well, that means someone who is
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> used to be higher than the lowest position. And only the levels that
> would be be below the new minimum wage got any adjustment.

How can that be?  If the law says that an employer has to pay a minimu wage,
how is it possible for the employer to pay some of their people a wage lower
than the minimum wage law?  What the heck good is a law, if some people can
still make less than the new minimum wage?

> At the same time, costs did go up for the store. So prices went up too.
>
> In my case, my wage did not go up. Actually, my sunday pay was lowered
> in the last contract, and I now have a deduction taken out each week
> for my health care. so, my paycheck went down.

Well, yes.  If you got a benefit that the owner does not want to pay for,
they are going to deduct it from your paycheck and you have no choice in the
matter....

But prices went up. So,
> my buying power went down. Cost of living went up, but my wage didn't.
> I actually made a lot less in 2006 than I did in 2005. Between the wage
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> nibbles on), and boy did the kitty litter stink. Talk about extortion.
> Pay up or deal with Mr. Stinky.

Seems to me that you should not have cats.
Toni from T.O. - 05 May 2006 01:18 GMT
> > Why, because they're getting rich in the US?  I'm pretty sure most Americans
> > profit unwittingly through the exploitation of illegal immigrant labour.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> The same people who did it before the illegal alien invasion, duh. Try
> coming up with something less hilariously cliched in the future.

Would that be people like you?
Barb - 05 May 2006 16:06 GMT
Look,

If people come into this country to work, if that's what we have to do, then
when their work is done why can't they take their pay and go home again?
They do not have to be invited to stay and become citizens just because they
snuck in uninvited.

When I hire someone to come into my house to do a job they leave with their
pay when their work is done.  They are not invited to move on in and become
a member of my family.

Furthermore, I would hardly trust anyone to do anything if they came in by
sneaking through an open door or window.

--
Barb
Of course I don't look busy,
I did it right the first time.
Runnnerr - 05 May 2006 16:07 GMT
> Look,
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Of course I don't look busy,
> I did it right the first time.

We shouldn't forget either the cost of social programs that are
provided to these illegal invading scum as well as the fact that they
are 29% of the federal prison population, commit on average 8 child
rapes a day and kill 30 people a day in auto accidents.
Toni from T.O. - 06 May 2006 19:20 GMT
.

> We shouldn't forget either the cost of social programs that are
> provided to these illegal invading scum as well as the fact that they
> are 29% of the federal prison population, commit on average 8 child
> rapes a day and kill 30 people a day in auto accidents.

As repugnant as I find your quotation of these figures (where did you get
them, by the way), how disproportionate are they to the rest of the
population?  How many child rapes are committed every day by American
citizens?  Plenty.
Seth Jackson - 07 May 2006 00:06 GMT
>.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>population?  How many child rapes are committed every day by American
>citizens?  Plenty.

Assuming these figures are accurate, why would quoting them be
repugnant?  If true, it's fairly obvious that their being 29% of the
prison population is quite disproportionate, as they make up far less
than 29% of the total US population.
Toni from T.O. - 07 May 2006 00:59 GMT
> >> We shouldn't forget either the cost of social programs that are
> >> provided to these illegal invading scum as well as the fact that they
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> prison population is quite disproportionate, as they make up far less
> than 29% of the total US population.

My reaction stems from the tone and the logic. The 29% figure might be easy
to confirm (which, by the way, speaks volumes about disproportionate
representation in American prisons as a whole).  But painting immigrants as
child rapists and dangerous drivers?  Please.  Pointy white hats and burning
crosses come to mind.
Seth Jackson - 07 May 2006 08:38 GMT
>> >> We shouldn't forget either the cost of social programs that are
>> >> provided to these illegal invading scum as well as the fact that they
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>child rapists and dangerous drivers?  Please.  Pointy white hats and burning
>crosses come to mind.

I hear what you're saying, but your post has a serious linguistic
problem, too.  This thread is not about "immigrants".   Never was.
It's about "illegal immigrants".   See the difference?
Toni from T.O. - 07 May 2006 17:17 GMT
>> I hear what you're saying, but your post has a serious linguistic
> problem, too.  This thread is not about "immigrants".   Never was.
> It's about "illegal immigrants".   See the difference?

I suspect the poster does not distinguish between legal and illegal when it
comes to making generalisations about immigrants.
Shardonnay - 08 May 2006 15:14 GMT
>>>>>We shouldn't forget either the cost of social programs that are
>>>>>provided to these illegal invading scum as well as the fact that they
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> problem, too.  This thread is not about "immigrants".   Never was.
> It's about "illegal immigrants".   See the difference?

Yes, but the subject line begs to differ.
Seth Jackson - 09 May 2006 01:55 GMT
>>>My reaction stems from the tone and the logic. The 29% figure might be easy
>>>to confirm (which, by the way, speaks volumes about disproportionate
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Yes, but the subject line begs to differ.

Yes, but everyone knows or ought to know that the so-called "Day
Without Immigrants" was about *illegal* immigrants.  There's no such
issue as "legal immigrants rights" to stage a march for.  Using the
word "immigrants" when the subject is "illegal immigrants" is
intellectually dishonest.  Unfortunately, I see it all too often.
Malcolm - 07 May 2006 17:32 GMT
>> Assuming these figures are accurate, why would quoting them be
>> repugnant?  If true, it's fairly obvious that their being 29% of the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> burning
> crosses come to mind.

If you are working as an illegal immigrant in a low-paid job, then you are
much more likely to be involved in crime than the general population.
The fact that you are sytematically breaking one law makes it
psychologically easier to break another. Then the realities of illegal work
are likely to bring you into contact with criminals. The pay is also likely
to be low, and it is harder to get married and have a normal family
background. Then the illegal worker is much more likely to be a young adult.
When you have a low-paid young adult living in a hostel or other temporary
accomodation, far from home, and with an illegal job and restricted ability
to go to the police if in trouble, then of course you are liley to get
crime. Not all illegal immigrants in this subcilture will commit non-trival
offences, of course, but many will.
Signature

Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm

Jim Higgins - 05 May 2006 16:16 GMT
> Look,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Of course I don't look busy,
> I did it right the first time.

The sooner these illegal aliens, enemy aliens, are expelled from this
country the better!
Toni from T.O. - 06 May 2006 19:10 GMT
> Look,
>
> If people come into this country to work, if that's what we have to do,

There's the problem.  Do you have to use illegal labour?  If you feel you
have to, then why not accord them the rights that you expect as a citizen?

then
> when their work is done why can't they take their pay and go home again?
> They do not have to be invited to stay and become citizens just because they
> snuck in uninvited.

If they become citizens, then they become taxpayers.  Sounds like a win-win.

> When I hire someone to come into my house to do a job they leave with their
> pay when their work is done.  They are not invited to move on in and become
> a member of my family.

> Furthermore, I would hardly trust anyone to do anything if they came in by
> sneaking through an open door or window.

If they sneak in through a door or window, they're stealing your stuff, not
remodeling your kitchen :-)  I suppose you can draw the analogy that illegal
immigrants are stealing from upright citizens by taking away jobs.  So how
to cut off the demand?
Jerry Okamura - 06 May 2006 22:08 GMT
>> Look,
>>
>> If people come into this country to work, if that's what we have to do,
>
> There's the problem.  Do you have to use illegal labour?  If you feel you
> have to, then why not accord them the rights that you expect as a citizen?

That depends on whether you can find the labor that is necessary to do the
work you need to be done, doesn't it?
Toni from T.O. - 07 May 2006 00:44 GMT
> >> If people come into this country to work, if that's what we have to do,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> That depends on whether you can find the labor that is necessary to do the
> work you need to be done, doesn't it?

Precisely.  If illegal labour is required to fill gaps in local supply,
then don't make it illegal for these people to work.
Seth Jackson - 07 May 2006 08:40 GMT
>> That depends on whether you can find the labor that is necessary to do the
>> work you need to be done, doesn't it?
>
> Precisely.  If illegal labour is required to fill gaps in local supply,
>then don't make it illegal for these people to work.

But do these gaps really exist?   Do you really believe there are such
things as "jobs Americans aren't willing to do"?   Personally, I think
that's a crock.  Pay a decent wage, and people will line up to apply.
Toni from T.O. - 07 May 2006 17:29 GMT
> But do these gaps really exist?   Do you really believe there are such
> things as "jobs Americans aren't willing to do"?   Personally, I think
> that's a crock.  Pay a decent wage, and people will line up to apply.

The key there is a decent wage.  I would hold the employers responsible who
hire people at sub-standard wages, thereby creating a demand for illegal
labour.
Jerry Okamura - 07 May 2006 19:23 GMT
>> But do these gaps really exist?   Do you really believe there are such
>> things as "jobs Americans aren't willing to do"?   Personally, I think
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> hire people at sub-standard wages, thereby creating a demand for illegal
> labour.

Higher wages, translates to higher cost of the goods and services these
businesses sell.  Higher cost for the goods and services means the people
who get hurt the most are the poor, who do not get those higher wages.
Toni from T.O. - 07 May 2006 21:52 GMT
> > The key there is a decent wage.  I would hold the employers responsible
> > who
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> businesses sell.  Higher cost for the goods and services means the people
> who get hurt the most are the poor, who do not get those higher wages.

But I'm talking about paying the poor these higher wages (i.e. to at least
subsistence level).  Why should anybody be paid less than that?
Jerry Okamura - 07 May 2006 19:21 GMT
>>> That depends on whether you can find the labor that is necessary to do
>>> the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> things as "jobs Americans aren't willing to do"?   Personally, I think
> that's a crock.  Pay a decent wage, and people will line up to apply.

Well, yes.  But it is a little more complicated than that.  If you paid a
person picking fruits, say $100,00 a year today, I am sure you would find a
heck of a lot more people willing to pick fruits.  Of course that would
drive up the price we pay for the fruits, but it could be done.  But is that
the best policy?  Does that help the majority of the people or hurt the
majority of the people?  And who would pay the highest price for that
policy?  Perhaps the very people you are trying to help by the policy, i.e.
the poor, who then has to pay to buy those fruits at that higher price?
Shardonnay - 08 May 2006 15:14 GMT
>>>That depends on whether you can find the labor that is necessary to do the
>>>work you need to be done, doesn't it?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> things as "jobs Americans aren't willing to do"?   Personally, I think
> that's a crock.  Pay a decent wage, and people will line up to apply.

Agreed.  If mowing lawns paid $50/hour, watch the teens line up!