On 12/21/2010 7:41 AM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:14:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2010 4:12 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:00 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? But Americn
law applies to him. Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

If Julian Assange were to be put on trial in The United States, there
would be a thousand lawyers falling all over themselves trying to get
to him to offer their services. And many of them would be your favorite
people, um, ...... Jewish. :-)

TDD

I thought it was the job of lawyers to represent people accused of
crimes. Did the rules change somehow? And what does being Jewish have
to do with it? They tend to be smart since all the stupid ones were
killed *******s like yourself.

I was teasing Harry who has a low opinion of The State of Israel. Don't
assume anything, I have a right to pick on Jews because they're my
cousins and I only tease family. Since I'm related to everyone, I pick
on everyone. :-)

Oh yea, one of my brothers and my uncle are lawyers so I can pick on
lawyers too. :-)

TDD

On Dec 21, 3:51*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/21/2010 7:41 AM, dgk wrote:





On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:14:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
*wrote:

On 12/21/2010 4:12 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:00 pm, * wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? *But Americn
law applies to him. *Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. *He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

If Julian Assange were to be put on trial in The United States, there
would be a thousand lawyers falling all over themselves trying to get
to him to offer their services. And many of them would be your favorite
people, um, ...... Jewish. :-)

TDD

I thought it was the job of lawyers to represent people accused of
crimes. Did the rules change somehow? And what does being Jewish have
to do with it? They tend to be smart since all the stupid ones were
killed *******s like yourself.

I was teasing Harry who has a low opinion of The State of Israel. Don't
assume anything, I have a right to pick on Jews because they're my
cousins and I only tease family. Since I'm related to everyone, I pick
on everyone. :-)

Oh yea, one of my brothers and my uncle are lawyers so I can pick on
lawyers too. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah jist looove te weynd y'all up!!!
Duf & I have this thing going!

On 12/22/2010 4:10 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 21, 3:51 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/21/2010 7:41 AM, dgk wrote:





On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:14:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2010 4:12 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:00 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? But Americn
law applies to him. Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

If Julian Assange were to be put on trial in The United States, there
would be a thousand lawyers falling all over themselves trying to get
to him to offer their services. And many of them would be your favorite
people, um, ...... Jewish. :-)

TDD

I thought it was the job of lawyers to represent people accused of
crimes. Did the rules change somehow? And what does being Jewish have
to do with it? They tend to be smart since all the stupid ones were
killed *******s like yourself.

I was teasing Harry who has a low opinion of The State of Israel. Don't
assume anything, I have a right to pick on Jews because they're my
cousins and I only tease family. Since I'm related to everyone, I pick
on everyone. :-)

Oh yea, one of my brothers and my uncle are lawyers so I can pick on
lawyers too. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah jist looove te weynd y'all up!!!
Duf& I have this thing going!

I just remembered, I have some cousins who are homosexual. I get to pick
on them too! :-)

TDD

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:51:51 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2010 7:41 AM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:14:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2010 4:12 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:00 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? But Americn
law applies to him. Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

If Julian Assange were to be put on trial in The United States, there
would be a thousand lawyers falling all over themselves trying to get
to him to offer their services. And many of them would be your favorite
people, um, ...... Jewish. :-)

TDD

I thought it was the job of lawyers to represent people accused of
crimes. Did the rules change somehow? And what does being Jewish have
to do with it? They tend to be smart since all the stupid ones were
killed *******s like yourself.

I was teasing Harry who has a low opinion of The State of Israel. Don't
assume anything, I have a right to pick on Jews because they're my
cousins and I only tease family. Since I'm related to everyone, I pick
on everyone. :-)

Oh yea, one of my brothers and my uncle are lawyers so I can pick on
lawyers too. :-)

TDD

Oh, I'm very sorry, I missed the sarcasm. I should have known, that
didn't seem like you.

On Dec 22, 10:07*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
wrote in message

We all know you won't spell it out more clearly because you *can't* spell it
out any more clearly. *Why? *Because what you wrote is just flat out wrong.
It's that simple. *So you bark out insults to try to cover your mistake..
It's your "tell."

I knew you couldn't back up your words any better than "you snipped me"
(first try) or now with "you're stupid" (second try), even when you got the
"context" you asked for. * *(-: *How about "my dog ate the Constitution!"
for the third attempt? *It's doesn't bother me, though. *It's your
credibility that's getting shredded, not mine. *What's that famous OER? *"He
has reached rock bottom yet continues to dig."

Your insulting response leads me to ask: Does KRW stand for "Kant Read OR
Write?" *All the weasel-wording, waffling, woofing and cries of "out of
context" won't make your claim true. *What is true is that you're trying to
portray yourself to be the kind of guy who never makes mistakes. *To avoid
losing arguments, you use insults to mask ignorance, hoping to slide under
the radar. *In that case, I am more than happy to help shine a light on your
true image and your debating skills or lack thereof.

Or maybe you're advocating the overthrow of the current democratic
government in favor of your new "profit oriented" constitution where *any*
infringement on liberty is unconstitutional. *Who knows? *You claim there's
some sort of contextual relevance I snipped but when it was restored, there
still isn't any "there" there. *There never was.

What's that you say when you want people to think someone's talking BS but
you have no proof to offer? *"Clueless?" *(-: *If the shoe fits . .

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp
Congress. Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than
five years to finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to
veto it, prior to that he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress
wanted to do. Are we seriously supposed to believe the White House
and Congress weren't in sync that half decade? It is not a credible
claim.

Don't forget the current administration allowing the Congress to draft and
pass the health care bill that will have, in spite of its pedigree, be
forever associated with him.

I'm not saying no President ever has to sign a bill he isn't really happy
with, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Bush only discovered he had a veto
power after five years or otherwise he would have vetoed a whole slew of
bills prior to that. He used that veto a dozen times once the Democrats
took control of Congress, so if he didn't use it but once in the years the
Republicans were in charge then it is reasonable to believe he wasn't too
unhappy with the bills being sent to him.

I'm also not saying Bush got everything he wanted from Congress. He
proposed immigration reform including a path to legal status for illegal
aliens (something folks on the right imagine only a Dem would propose) and
he didn't get it. He also asked Congress to give him a line-item veto, but
he probably didn't seriously expect they would. But on balance it's silly
to pretend that the Bush admin didn't have a mostly cooperative Congress the
first six years.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


Hey Bub, now you know you shouldn't point out his hypocrisy, he
might blow a gasket. :-)

My gaskets are in no danger, but you should consider getting your bull****
filter changed, it's leaking badly.

On Dec 22, 6:36*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message

m...

Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp
Congress. Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than
five years to finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to
veto it, prior to that he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress
wanted to do. *Are we seriously supposed to believe the White House
and Congress weren't in sync that half decade? *It is not a credible
claim.
Don't forget the current administration allowing the Congress to draft and
pass the health care bill that will have, in spite of its pedigree, be
forever associated with him.

I'm not saying no President ever has to sign a bill he isn't really happy
with, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Bush only discovered he had a veto
power after five years or otherwise he would have vetoed a whole slew of
bills prior to that. *He used that veto a dozen times once the Democrats
took control of Congress, so if he didn't use it but once in the years the
Republicans were in charge then it is reasonable to believe he wasn't too
unhappy with the bills being sent to him.

I'm also not saying Bush got everything he wanted from Congress. *He
proposed immigration reform including a path to legal status for illegal
aliens (something folks on the right imagine only a Dem would propose) and
he didn't get it. *He also asked Congress to give him a line-item veto, but
he probably didn't seriously expect they would. *But on balance it's silly
to pretend that the Bush admin didn't have a mostly cooperative Congress the
first six years.

The rich need poor people to work for them. Illegals work for less
money than anyone else.

On Dec 23, 1:04*am, harry wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:36*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:



"HeyBub" *wrote in message

om...

Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp
Congress. Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than
five years to finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to
veto it, prior to that he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress
wanted to do. *Are we seriously supposed to believe the White House
and Congress weren't in sync that half decade? *It is not a credible
claim.
Don't forget the current administration allowing the Congress to draft and
pass the health care bill that will have, in spite of its pedigree, be
forever associated with him.

I'm not saying no President ever has to sign a bill he isn't really happy
with, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Bush only discovered he had a veto
power after five years or otherwise he would have vetoed a whole slew of
bills prior to that. *He used that veto a dozen times once the Democrats
took control of Congress, so if he didn't use it but once in the years the
Republicans were in charge then it is reasonable to believe he wasn't too
unhappy with the bills being sent to him.

I'm also not saying Bush got everything he wanted from Congress. *He
proposed immigration reform including a path to legal status for illegal
aliens (something folks on the right imagine only a Dem would propose) and
he didn't get it. *He also asked Congress to give him a line-item veto, but
he probably didn't seriously expect they would. *But on balance it's silly
to pretend that the Bush admin didn't have a mostly cooperative Congress the
first six years.

The rich need poor people to work for them. Illegals work for less
money than anyone else.

Bingo!

That's exactly why "immigration reform" never went anywhere, despite
the huge sums thrown at the "problem". Like the ridiculous fence
along the Mexican border which was just abandoned after costing
taxpayers

On Dec 23, 1:58*am, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Dec 23, 1:04*am, harry wrote:



On Dec 22, 6:36*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

"HeyBub" *wrote in message

om...

Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp
Congress. Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than
five years to finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to
veto it, prior to that he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress
wanted to do. *Are we seriously supposed to believe the White House
and Congress weren't in sync that half decade? *It is not a credible
claim.
Don't forget the current administration allowing the Congress to draft and
pass the health care bill that will have, in spite of its pedigree, be
forever associated with him.

I'm not saying no President ever has to sign a bill he isn't really happy
with, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Bush only discovered he had a veto
power after five years or otherwise he would have vetoed a whole slew of
bills prior to that. *He used that veto a dozen times once the Democrats
took control of Congress, so if he didn't use it but once in the years the
Republicans were in charge then it is reasonable to believe he wasn't too
unhappy with the bills being sent to him.

I'm also not saying Bush got everything he wanted from Congress. *He
proposed immigration reform including a path to legal status for illegal
aliens (something folks on the right imagine only a Dem would propose) and
he didn't get it. *He also asked Congress to give him a line-item veto, but
he probably didn't seriously expect they would. *But on balance it's silly
to pretend that the Bush admin didn't have a mostly cooperative Congress the
first six years.

The rich need poor people to work for them. Illegals work for less
money than anyone else.

Bingo!

That's exactly why "immigration reform" never went anywhere, despite
the huge sums thrown at the "problem". *Like the ridiculous fence
along the Mexican border which was just abandoned after costing
taxpayers

Sorry - hit the wrong key - sent too soon.

BILLIONS.

It's no secret that corrupt legislators in the pay of Big Agriculture
did away with the reasonable Bracero program in California, which
brought in farm workers on an organized basis, saw that they had
halfway decent working conditions, and sent them back home after the
job was done, on an organized basis.

Exploiting scared workers living in the shadow of deportation, subject
to "la migra" raids, often cheated of their pay by bosses calling the
authorities -- that's the way to keep wages pushed down so low that
no (spoiled) American will take these hard, hard jobs.

That the US Congress just defeated the DREAM act is a truly revolting
example of the mad dog far-far-Right Republican obstructionism.

Young people who were brought here INVOLUNTARILY by their parents at a
very young age, have no connection with their "country of origin",
They grew up here; consider themselves Americans. Most have worked
hard in school; some even went on to grad school and became
professionals. All while living in fear of deportation.

It would be a horrible waste of valuable human capital to deport these
fine young people to a place they don't even know. But the heartless
legislators who blocked the DREAM act via hysterical threats of
"opening the door to amnesty" care nothing for the welfare of our
country. They care only for the rewards they get from our corporate
masters for working to bring down Obama.

HB

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:09:16 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson
wrote:

On Dec 23, 1:58*am, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Dec 23, 1:04*am, harry wrote:



On Dec 22, 6:36*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

"HeyBub" *wrote in message

om...

Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp
Congress. Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than
five years to finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to
veto it, prior to that he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress
wanted to do. *Are we seriously supposed to believe the White House
and Congress weren't in sync that half decade? *It is not a credible
claim.
Don't forget the current administration allowing the Congress to draft and
pass the health care bill that will have, in spite of its pedigree, be
forever associated with him.

I'm not saying no President ever has to sign a bill he isn't really happy
with, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Bush only discovered he had a veto
power after five years or otherwise he would have vetoed a whole slew of
bills prior to that. *He used that veto a dozen times once the Democrats
took control of Congress, so if he didn't use it but once in the years the
Republicans were in charge then it is reasonable to believe he wasn't too
unhappy with the bills being sent to him.

I'm also not saying Bush got everything he wanted from Congress. *He
proposed immigration reform including a path to legal status for illegal
aliens (something folks on the right imagine only a Dem would propose) and
he didn't get it. *He also asked Congress to give him a line-item veto, but
he probably didn't seriously expect they would. *But on balance it's silly
to pretend that the Bush admin didn't have a mostly cooperative Congress the
first six years.

The rich need poor people to work for them. Illegals work for less
money than anyone else.

Bingo!

That's exactly why "immigration reform" never went anywhere, despite
the huge sums thrown at the "problem". *Like the ridiculous fence
along the Mexican border which was just abandoned after costing
taxpayers

Sorry - hit the wrong key - sent too soon.

BILLIONS.

It's no secret that corrupt legislators in the pay of Big Agriculture
did away with the reasonable Bracero program in California, which
brought in farm workers on an organized basis, saw that they had
halfway decent working conditions, and sent them back home after the
job was done, on an organized basis.

Exploiting scared workers living in the shadow of deportation, subject
to "la migra" raids, often cheated of their pay by bosses calling the
authorities -- that's the way to keep wages pushed down so low that
no (spoiled) American will take these hard, hard jobs.

That the US Congress just defeated the DREAM act is a truly revolting
example of the mad dog far-far-Right Republican obstructionism.

Young people who were brought here INVOLUNTARILY by their parents at a
very young age, have no connection with their "country of origin",
They grew up here; consider themselves Americans. Most have worked
hard in school; some even went on to grad school and became
professionals. All while living in fear of deportation.

It would be a horrible waste of valuable human capital to deport these
fine young people to a place they don't even know. But the heartless
legislators who blocked the DREAM act via hysterical threats of
"opening the door to amnesty" care nothing for the welfare of our
country. They care only for the rewards they get from our corporate
masters for working to bring down Obama.

HB

Thanks for writing this since most folks don't really know what Dream
is about.

On Dec 23, 1:08*pm, dgk wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:09:16 -0800 (PST), Higgs Boson





wrote:
On Dec 23, 1:58 am, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Dec 23, 1:04 am, harry wrote:

On Dec 22, 6:36 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message

om...

Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp
Congress. Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than
five years to finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to
veto it, prior to that he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress
wanted to do. Are we seriously supposed to believe the White House
and Congress weren't in sync that half decade? It is not a credible
claim.
Don't forget the current administration allowing the Congress to draft and
pass the health care bill that will have, in spite of its pedigree, be
forever associated with him.

I'm not saying no President ever has to sign a bill he isn't really happy
with, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Bush only discovered he had a veto
power after five years or otherwise he would have vetoed a whole slew of
bills prior to that. He used that veto a dozen times once the Democrats
took control of Congress, so if he didn't use it but once in the years the
Republicans were in charge then it is reasonable to believe he wasn't too
unhappy with the bills being sent to him.

I'm also not saying Bush got everything he wanted from Congress. He
proposed immigration reform including a path to legal status for illegal
aliens (something folks on the right imagine only a Dem would propose) and
he didn't get it. He also asked Congress to give him a line-item veto, but
he probably didn't seriously expect they would. But on balance it's silly
to pretend that the Bush admin didn't have a mostly cooperative Congress the
first six years.

The rich need poor people to work for them. Illegals work for less
money than anyone else.

Bingo!

That's exactly why "immigration reform" never went anywhere, despite
the huge sums thrown at the "problem". Like the ridiculous fence
along the Mexican border which was just abandoned after costing
taxpayers

Sorry - hit the wrong key - sent too soon.

BILLIONS.

It's no secret that corrupt legislators in the pay of Big Agriculture
did away with the reasonable Bracero program in California, which
brought in farm workers on an organized basis, saw that they had
halfway decent working conditions, and sent them back home after the
job was done, on an organized basis.

Exploiting scared workers living in the shadow of deportation, subject
to "la migra" raids, often cheated of their pay by bosses calling the
authorities -- that's the way to keep wages pushed *down so low that
no (spoiled) American will take these hard, hard jobs.

That the US Congress just defeated the DREAM act is a truly revolting
example of the mad dog far-far-Right Republican obstructionism.

Young people who were brought here INVOLUNTARILY by their parents at a
very young age, have no connection with their "country of origin",
They grew up here; consider themselves Americans. *Most have worked
hard in school; some even went on to grad school and became
professionals. *All while living in fear of deportation.

It would be a horrible waste of valuable human capital to deport these
fine young people to a place they don't even know. *But the heartless
legislators who blocked the DREAM act via hysterical threats of
"opening the door to amnesty" care nothing for the welfare of our
country. They care only for the rewards they get from our corporate
masters for working to bring down Obama.

HB

Thanks for writing this since most folks don't really know what Dream
is about.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well at least your illegals come to work.
Ours come here for a life of crime. They have no skills (even for
picking fruit). The worst are from Africa (Somalia and the like).
They come over the Med by boat or to the Canary Islands by boat.
It's expensvie to get here, so we don't get the poor. The wealthy
don't come (they would be poor when they got here). So that leaves
criminals, the only others with any money.
We also get scum from Romania, Bulgaria and the like bent on a life of
crime. I think 20% of our prison population is foriegners.

On Dec 23, 10:09*am, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Dec 23, 1:58*am, Higgs Boson wrote:





On Dec 23, 1:04*am, harry wrote:

On Dec 22, 6:36*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

"HeyBub" *wrote in message

om...

Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp
Congress. Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than
five years to finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to
veto it, prior to that he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress
wanted to do. *Are we seriously supposed to believe the White House
and Congress weren't in sync that half decade? *It is not a credible
claim.
Don't forget the current administration allowing the Congress to draft and
pass the health care bill that will have, in spite of its pedigree, be
forever associated with him.

I'm not saying no President ever has to sign a bill he isn't really happy
with, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Bush only discovered he had a veto
power after five years or otherwise he would have vetoed a whole slew of
bills prior to that. *He used that veto a dozen times once the Democrats
took control of Congress, so if he didn't use it but once in the years the
Republicans were in charge then it is reasonable to believe he wasn't too
unhappy with the bills being sent to him.

I'm also not saying Bush got everything he wanted from Congress. *He
proposed immigration reform including a path to legal status for illegal
aliens (something folks on the right imagine only a Dem would propose) and
he didn't get it. *He also asked Congress to give him a line-item veto, but
he probably didn't seriously expect they would. *But on balance it's silly
to pretend that the Bush admin didn't have a mostly cooperative Congress the
first six years.

The rich need poor people to work for them. Illegals work for less
money than anyone else.

Bingo!

That's exactly why "immigration reform" never went anywhere, despite
the huge sums thrown at the "problem". *Like the ridiculous fence
along the Mexican border which was just abandoned after costing
taxpayers

Sorry - hit the wrong key - sent too soon.

BILLIONS.

It's no secret that corrupt legislators in the pay of Big Agriculture
did away with the reasonable Bracero program in California, which
brought in farm workers on an organized basis, saw that they had
halfway decent working conditions, and sent them back home after the
job was done, on an organized basis.

Exploiting scared workers living in the shadow of deportation, subject
to "la migra" raids, often cheated of their pay by bosses calling the
authorities -- that's the way to keep wages pushed *down so low that
no (spoiled) American will take these hard, hard jobs.

That the US Congress just defeated the DREAM act is a truly revolting
example of the mad dog far-far-Right Republican obstructionism.

Young people who were brought here INVOLUNTARILY by their parents at a
very young age, have no connection with their "country of origin",
They grew up here; consider themselves Americans. *Most have worked
hard in school; some even went on to grad school and became
professionals. *All while living in fear of deportation.

It would be a horrible waste of valuable human capital to deport these
fine young people to a place they don't even know. *But the heartless
legislators who blocked the DREAM act via hysterical threats of
"opening the door to amnesty" care nothing for the welfare of our
country. They care only for the rewards they get from our corporate
masters for working to bring down Obama.

HB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you go to "more options" you can cancel you own posts BTW.

In article
,
harry wrote:

If you go to "more options" you can cancel you own posts BTW.

Um, this is usenet, Harry, not really a part of Google. Good luck
canceling a usenet post.

Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,
harry wrote:

If you go to "more options" you can cancel you own posts BTW.

Um, this is usenet, Harry, not really a part of Google. Good luck
canceling a usenet post.

Oh, I can cancel a post-- "action/Rescind Usenet Post" in Agent. . . .
and if I can move faster than those little bits do to my server, I'm
golden.g

Jim

On Dec 23, 11:07*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
If you go to "more options" you can cancel you own posts BTW.

Um, this is usenet, Harry, not really a part of Google. Good luck
canceling a usenet post.

THIS IS IN ORDER...AND YES YOU CAN REMOVE YOUR OWN POST AND COMMENTS,
AND LEAVE THE TROLL HOLDING THE BASKET.
TEEHEEHEE IT IS NOT YOUR AVERAGE GOOGOONET., USENET SERVERS ARE A
DYING HORROR/
THESE GROUPS ARE A FRESH SUPPLY OF TALENTED SOULS NOW.
FEAST! BUT DONT BE A BEAST!

PATECUM

"harry" wrote in message
...

The rich need poor people to work for them. Illegals work for less
money than anyone else.

They don't *need* poor people to work for them, they can just make even more
money if they can get some illegal immigrants to do your job for even less
money. Of course one of those illegal immigrants will end up borrowing
money to start his own business and you'll end up working for him.

"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...

That the US Congress just defeated the DREAM act is a truly revolting
example of the mad dog far-far-Right Republican obstructionism.

Most Republicans are terrified of appearing soft on illegal immigration, so
even if such reform makes sense they're going to oppose it. Meanwhile,
which organization that has spent millions helping to get Republicans
elected has also gone to court to oppose employers being required to use the
federal government's system set up to check the documents of job applicants
to make sure they're eligible to work? The American Chamber of Commerce.

Ain't it funny how things work out sometimes?

On Dec 24, 12:36*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

If you go to "more options" you can cancel you own posts BTW.

Um, this is usenet, Harry, not really a part of Google. Good luck
canceling a usenet post.

Oh, I can cancel a post-- "action/Rescind Usenet Post" in Agent. . . .
and if I can move faster than those little bits do to my server, I'm
golden.g

Jim

Well I can cancel my posts.

On Dec 25, 12:51*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Higgs Boson" *wrote in message

...

That the US Congress just defeated the DREAM act is a truly revolting
example of the mad dog far-far-Right Republican obstructionism.

Most Republicans are terrified of appearing soft on illegal immigration, so
even if such reform makes sense they're going to oppose it. *Meanwhile,
which organization that has spent millions helping to get Republicans
elected has also gone to court to oppose employers being required to use the
federal government's system set up to check the documents of job applicants
to make sure they're eligible to work? *The American Chamber of Commerce.

Ain't it funny how things work out sometimes?

Funny peculiar or funny Ha Ha?
They go through the motions to appease their voters whose jobs/incomes
are being taken/threatened. But they need the illegals to force down
wages paid by their real masters, the rich.
Yet the turkeys still vote for Christmas.