On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:00:29 -0800, RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 17, 9:00 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:20:30 -0800, RicodJour wrote:

I think this is where you move on to say that it was the subcontractors
that hired the illegal immigrants. Then I reply that obviously Walmart
was aware of it, that it was a pattern of abuse that Walmart took
advantage of to line their coffers, and why they ended up paying a fine
almost three times as much as the 12 subcontractors' fines combined.
Then you call my heritage into question, I pop you one, we scuffle for
a while, then get winded pretty quickly being old farts, and we retire
to a local tavern for some libations and to trade war stories. It's a
formula, but it works.

Fine, you want to call the results a single government operation that led
to a single trial against Wal-Mart "numerous busts" you go right ahead.

61 stores were raided. Coincidence or a pattern?

Single bust, multiple locations.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting as the alternative. Would you
prefer the sting operation extracted one illegal alien from one store
at a time?

That would be repeated busts.

That sounds efficient. Maybe the feds are taking a page
from Walmart's book and consolidating to take advantage of the economies
of scale.

Yes, they are, hence the single bust that you keep claiming was not a
single bust.




--
X:\Newsreaders\sig.txt