It's going to be sticker shock, when the prices get
passed on to the consumer.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

grapes and walnuts. Unless those workers somehow
get across that border, agriculture here once
again will be hard hit, if not crippled.


So who's to blame, the law has been ignored for so long, what would you
expect? I do seem to recall a good guest worker policy in years past but
people ignored the law and didn't go home and they were allowed to get
away with it. I would definitely like to see a good guest/migrant farm
worker policy and put some teeth in it and enforce it so scofflaws would
be reluctant to ignore the law. o_O

TDD

Do they taste a bit like chicken?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...



Too bad they're not doing much about stopping them from coming in. in
the first place
Imagine how much deportation costs they could save with interdiction..


Ya know, a bunch of rednecks with deer rifles could put a stop to
illegal border crossings. Just have an open season illegal invaders
crossing the border. They wouldn't have to kill any of them, the bullets
hitting the ground all around a fence climber would scare the
crap out of them and discourage their trespassing. ^_^

TDD

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:48:01 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:15:45 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:28:56 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/4/2013 6:23 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:58:36 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/1/2013 4:17 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:11:09 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:
...
All of which are doing exactly what I said. They are paying a hell of
a lot in total taxes. It's just that the effective rate gets reduced
from 35% to 15% or 20% through various tax exemptions.
So what? It has nothing to do with people getting all kinds of
free handouts from the govt who are PAYING NO INCOME
TAX at all. Capiche?

So it's okay with you if GE doesn't pay income tax, but if a person
living on $8,000/year doesn't pay any income tax, you are livid.

You must be very sad that Michele Bachmann decided not to run again.



Not a SINGLE corporate entity actually pays "income tax"
For the very simple reason that to a corporation a tax is just another cost
that is factored into the bottom line
The tax is ultimately paid by the consumer
Corporate tax is nothing but indirect citizen tax

Which is a great argument for a gross receipts tax, which is far harder
for corporations to dodge.


Like "The Fair Tax" which gives P.L.L.C.F. seizures whenever it's
brought up in any house of Congress. ^_^

Only because it is not remotely fair.

When there is fair income, then we can talk about the "fair tax". As
long as the poor are screwed by the rich, the rich can pay the countries
bills, since they are the ones benefitting.


Hey I know, there was a wonderful P.L.L.C.F. idea to make it law that
everyone must be paid a minimum of $100,000.00 per year. That way poor
people would have enough money to lead a good life. ^_^

TDD

What a foolish attempt at a response.

Give him the credit he disserves. He *was* attempting to communicate
with you. He still talked too far above you, obviously.

By attributing a silly, exaggerated claim to liberals. No, he was
trying, but failing, to mock what he ignorantly thinks liberals want.

wrote in :


You *certainly* did, you lying sack of ****.

You really are a dumb****!

You really are a dumb****! Proven.

Wow! A twofer. You really are a stupid ****!


Another Compassionate Conservative speaketh.

wrote in :

Then STFU and stop whining about what OTHERS do.


You're lying again.

You're lying again.

You're lying again.

You're a lying sack of ****

You're lying again. You lefties always do.

You're a lying sack of **** but everyone knows that.

No, you lying sack of ****



Boy, Compassionate Conservatism
sure didn't last long, did it.........

On 6/5/2013 6:15 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:24:14 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 20:28:24 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
wrote:
...
I grew up attending school and college during the 50's, 60's and 70's. I
witnessed first hand, the degradation of education in the United States
and it bothered me even as a kid in grammar school. I could see it
happening in the government schools I had to attend when my parents
could no longer afford the private parochial school education. The
teachers in the government schools were not bad evil people (a few of
them were). The problem was the raw material and school board policies
they had to work with. We recited The Pledge Of Allegiance and perhaps a
prayer every morning but I saw the beginnings of Political Correctness
even back then. When I was six years old, I decided all adults were full
of crap, the mistake I made was letting the nuns know it. I had a much
rougher time in government school because of the prevalence of complete
dumb asses. It was awful, the kids didn't read books for the joy of
learning and attacked anyone they considered a book worm. The culture of
doing just enough school work to get by was rearing its ugly head even
back then and now it's much worse. I'm so distressed when a high school
or college student of today may only understand every other word when I
try to carry on a conversation with them. Do I consider myself a genius?
Hell no! I get embarrassed at the thought of speaking with someone who
really is because I may appear to have the naivety of a child. The lack
of educated citizens is wrecking our country and the majority of PhD
candidates in The United States are foreign nationals who take their
great intellect and education back home with them to build up their home
country. We're damn lucky some of them decide to stick around. o_O

TDD

You are 100% correct.

Jason, you have made it clear that you are not competent to judge such
claims. Besides, what makes you think that he isn't including you as one
of the complete dumbasses?

It does not matter since I enjoyed reading the above post.

You often enjoy evil diatribes.


But I admit to being evil. Sister Godzilla often said I was. ^_^

TDD

On 6/5/2013 7:48 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:15:45 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:28:56 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/4/2013 6:23 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:58:36 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/1/2013 4:17 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:11:09 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote
in alt.atheism: ...
All of which are doing exactly what I said. They are
paying a hell of a lot in total taxes. It's just
that the effective rate gets reduced from 35% to 15%
or 20% through various tax exemptions. So what? It
has nothing to do with people getting all kinds of
free handouts from the govt who are PAYING NO INCOME
TAX at all. Capiche?

So it's okay with you if GE doesn't pay income tax, but
if a person living on $8,000/year doesn't pay any
income tax, you are livid.

You must be very sad that Michele Bachmann decided not
to run again.



Not a SINGLE corporate entity actually pays "income tax"
For the very simple reason that to a corporation a tax is
just another cost that is factored into the bottom line
The tax is ultimately paid by the consumer Corporate tax
is nothing but indirect citizen tax

Which is a great argument for a gross receipts tax, which
is far harder for corporations to dodge.


Like "The Fair Tax" which gives P.L.L.C.F. seizures whenever
it's brought up in any house of Congress. ^_^

Only because it is not remotely fair.

When there is fair income, then we can talk about the "fair
tax". As long as the poor are screwed by the rich, the rich can
pay the countries bills, since they are the ones benefitting.


Hey I know, there was a wonderful P.L.L.C.F. idea to make it law
that everyone must be paid a minimum of $100,000.00 per year.
That way poor people would have enough money to lead a good life.
^_^

TDD

What a foolish attempt at a response.

Give him the credit he disserves. He *was* attempting to
communicate with you. He still talked too far above you, obviously.


He may be suffering from H.I.S.I., pronounced "hissy". It stands for
(H)umor (I)rony (S)arcasm (I)mpairment. People with that particular
mental disease are said to have H.I.S.I. fits and often put on a big
display of pseudo-intellectualism about the subject at hand when they
fail to see the humor or bizarreness of statements made by someone who
is attempting to pull their leg. It's also called The Mr. Data response
in some circles. ^_^

TDD

On 6/5/2013 9:02 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:48:01 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:15:45 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:28:56 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/4/2013 6:23 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:58:36 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/1/2013 4:17 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:11:09 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:
...
All of which are doing exactly what I said. They are paying a hell of
a lot in total taxes. It's just that the effective rate gets reduced
from 35% to 15% or 20% through various tax exemptions.
So what? It has nothing to do with people getting all kinds of
free handouts from the govt who are PAYING NO INCOME
TAX at all. Capiche?

So it's okay with you if GE doesn't pay income tax, but if a person
living on $8,000/year doesn't pay any income tax, you are livid.

You must be very sad that Michele Bachmann decided not to run again.



Not a SINGLE corporate entity actually pays "income tax"
For the very simple reason that to a corporation a tax is just another cost
that is factored into the bottom line
The tax is ultimately paid by the consumer
Corporate tax is nothing but indirect citizen tax

Which is a great argument for a gross receipts tax, which is far harder
for corporations to dodge.


Like "The Fair Tax" which gives P.L.L.C.F. seizures whenever it's
brought up in any house of Congress. ^_^

Only because it is not remotely fair.

When there is fair income, then we can talk about the "fair tax". As
long as the poor are screwed by the rich, the rich can pay the countries
bills, since they are the ones benefitting.


Hey I know, there was a wonderful P.L.L.C.F. idea to make it law that
everyone must be paid a minimum of $100,000.00 per year. That way poor
people would have enough money to lead a good life. ^_^

TDD

What a foolish attempt at a response.

Give him the credit he disserves. He *was* attempting to communicate
with you. He still talked too far above you, obviously.

By attributing a silly, exaggerated claim to liberals. No, he was
trying, but failing, to mock what he ignorantly thinks liberals want.


Nope, P.L.L.C.F., they're special. ^_^

TDD

On 6/5/2013 6:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote in news:kooc6s
:




Probably because of all the built in waste and corruption in any
Democrat sponsored legislation. ^_^



How do you explain Republicans blocking
their OWN legislation?


Probably because of all the built in waste and corruption in any
Democrat/Republican sponsored legislation. ^_^

TDD

On 6/5/2013 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:07:11 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/5/2013 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:52:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

It's not in the Constitution,

So you admit that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. Good, at least we
have that out of the way.

you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger).

Idiot.

It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

Bull****. Read the Constitution, will ya? Of course you won't. You
don't like it and want to see it abolished. Idiot.

BTW, I was wrong to say it wasn't in the Constitution.

You *certainly* did, you lying sack of ****.
"It's not in the Constitution"

See Article One, Section 8, which includes:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Reading the Constitution that "liberally" one can justify *anything*,
including concentration camps. You really are a dumb****!

I'm really surprised you didn't come up with the "general welfare"
bull**** you idiot lefties usually do, though.

You know, the Commerce Clause. In the Constitution. Of the United States
of America.

You really are a dumb****! Proven.

Wow! A twofer. You really are a stupid ****!

Interesting, then, that the Commerce Clause was used exactly the way I
said it could be used--to curb the excesses of the market. The Sherman
Anti-Trust Act, for example, was enacted to keep monopolies from
distorting the market.

But maybe you're a brain-dead libertarian or Neandertal conservative who
thinks the market takes care of itself for the benefit of everyone. In
that case, I can only shake my head and walk away.

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:17:53 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:

wrote in :

Then STFU and stop whining about what OTHERS do.


You're lying again.

You're lying again.

You're lying again.

You're a lying sack of ****

You're lying again. You lefties always do.

You're a lying sack of **** but everyone knows that.

No, you lying sack of ****



Boy, Compassionate Conservatism
sure didn't last long, did it.........

It never took hold in this ****y little sod who thinks to
cover up his personal inadequacies and failure in life with
bluster and rudeness. SOmeone who is incapable of arguing
his cause without resorting to crudities has already lost
the argument.

I am done with this muppet.

On 6/3/2013 8:12 AM, wrote:
On Jun 2, 10:50 pm, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
(Jason) wrote :





In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 2, 9:43 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.

What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for Innuit ?

My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Arresting illegal aliens is not bigotry. What is in fact bigotted
is your implying that an Italian-American enforcing immigration
law makes him racist.

I'm noting that he is a man who has no understanding of history.

The court case showed that he was racist and bigoted and that he was
engaging in illegal actions in the way he enforced the law.

The supreme court said it was OK for his officers to check the
immigration status of people they pull over for committing traffic
violations or other types of law violations.

They cannot jail them just for suspicion of illegal entry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who ever claimed that they ever intended to do that? Just you libs,
who didn't even read the law. Geeez


Perhaps the U.S. should copy the immigration laws of Mexico? I'd like to
see the compassionate, loving P.L.L.C.F. enter Mexico without a visa
or any other legal status for being there and listen to them howl about
human rights when they're locked up in a Mexican jail. ^_^

TDD

On 6/2/2013 9:49 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:01:23 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The
cop would ask him for his driver's license and his green card. If
the green card info. checks out, he would not have to be concerned
about being sent back to Mexico. He may get a ticket for speeding or
running a red light.

Except that American citizens have no duty to carry papers. Police
don't have the right to ask you every day to show that you are a
citizen.

On the other hand, if the Latino does NOT have a green card, he
could be arrested and border patrol agents would be notified to pick
him up since he was not an American citizen and did not have a green
card.

The Supreme Court stated it was OK for cops to do it. Don't you
support Supreme Court decisions?


There is a requirement that legal immigrants to America must carry
green cards.



Not if they are naturalized US citizens.


I have no problem with cops asking latinos to show them
their green cards when they are pulled over for law violations such as
speeding or running red lights.


So you think Sheriff Joe can put Arnold
Schwartzenegger in jail "because he sounds
foreign" while he checks out his citizenship
status?


We have a Mercedes plant South of Birmingham, Al and a German man
employed by Mercedes was detained because he had no drivers license
and his immigration status was questioned. Of course, his employer
had to rescue him. ^_^

TDD

On 6/5/2013 7:43 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
(Jason) wrote in
:

In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:


So you think Sheriff Joe can put Arnold
Schwartzenegger in jail "because he sounds
foreign" while he checks out his citizenship
status?

If Arnold S. does not have a legal American driver's license, he
could be placed in jail if he was driving on a state road in
Arizona.

A driver's license in most states means the person is an American
citizen.

It absolutely does NOT mean that.


Actually it does
There are only 3 States that issue State ID, including Driver's
License that does not require proof of citizenship or legal
residence, New Mexico, Utah, Washington
Every other state REQUIRES proof of citizenship or legal residence to
issue a driver's license.

But driving in the US with a foreign license is NOT proof of being in
the country illegally
But you cannot legally reside in ANY State beyond a certain length of
time before you are required to get a local license.
A person who claims to be an American resident for more than 30 days
and driving an out-of-country license is definitely a red flag
situation

pesky facts---liberals seem to hate pesky facts.




Good thing we have Jason to provide us with "facts".


"Lots of people voted for Clinton even after they
found out that he was having sex with Monica."
Jason, Jan 9.2012. In fact Clinton never ran for
office again after the Monicagate scandal.


WTF does Bill Clinton getting a Lewinsky from a chubby Jewish girl have
to do with illegal immigration? ^_^

TDD

On 6/3/2013 10:36 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/3/2013 1:41 AM, Jason wrote:
In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be
safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop
would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's
undocumented?

Arizona shares a border with Mexico and as a result, it's easy for
illegal
immigrants to travel from Mexico to Arizona.

If people in Arizona have legal driver's licenses and/or legal green
cards
they have nothing to be concerned about.


That's not true. If an American citizen is stopped and asked for their
green card, or any form of identification as a legal resident, other
than a driver's license, they have something to be concerned about.
Their family could have lived in the same place for 10 generations, but
still speak Spanish and not be carrying their birth certificate.

In those cases, and they *have* happened, the person involved could very
well be quite inconvenienced and subjected to harassment and humiliation
for the crime of Driving While Brown.

IT HAPPENS. This isn't theoretical.

You won't get it.

So their family has been in The United States for generations and still
not been assimilated into American society? Humm, sounds a bit odd. o_O

TDD

On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:36:00 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/3/2013 1:41 AM, Jason wrote:
In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be
safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop
would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's undocumented?

Arizona shares a border with Mexico and as a result, it's easy for illegal
immigrants to travel from Mexico to Arizona.

If people in Arizona have legal driver's licenses and/or legal green cards
they have nothing to be concerned about.


That's not true. If an American citizen is stopped and asked for their
green card, or any form of identification as a legal resident, other
than a driver's license, they have something to be concerned about.
Their family could have lived in the same place for 10 generations, but
still speak Spanish and not be carrying their birth certificate.

In those cases, and they *have* happened, the person involved could very
well be quite inconvenienced and subjected to harassment and humiliation
for the crime of Driving While Brown.

IT HAPPENS. This isn't theoretical.

You won't get it.

No one asks peckerwoods if they are citizens.


Gee! What a racist comment! ^_^

TDD

On 6/3/2013 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:41 am, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
" wrote :



Why is it that you libs just bitch about what AZ is doing and
ignore it when one of your lib pals, ie Bloomberg does stop
and frisks?

Bloomberg got elected as a REPUBLICAN, remember.

As was Guiliani before him.

What a "liberal" city NYC is, right?

Bloomberg is *not* a Republican. He was a Democrat and pretended
to switch parties only briefly so that he could run for Mayor.
Shortly thereafter, he
became an "independent", which he remains to this day.

And yes NYC is a liberal city. Bloomberg is a liberal. He rails
against
smoking, against salt, against cars. He tried to limit the size of
soft drinks you
can buy. Why do you not accept one of your own?


Bloomberg want's to disarm law abiding Americans but he surrounds
himself with heavily armed guards. That's always a sign someone is
a Commiecrat. ^_^

TDD

On Jun 6, 8:24*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 6/3/2013 8:12 AM, wrote:





On Jun 2, 10:50 pm, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
(Jason) wrote :

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 2, 9:43 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
. ..
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.

What profiling are you babbling about ?
* * *The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for * * Innuit ?

* * My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Arresting illegal aliens is not bigotry. *What is in fact bigotted
is your implying that an Italian-American enforcing immigration
law makes him racist.

I'm noting that he is a man who has no understanding of history.

The court case showed that he was racist and bigoted and that he was
engaging in illegal actions in the way he enforced the law.

The supreme court said it was OK for his officers to check the
immigration status of people they pull over for committing traffic
violations or other types of law violations.

* * *They cannot jail them just for suspicion of illegal entry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who ever claimed that they ever intended to do that? *Just you libs,
who didn't even read the law. * *Geeez

Perhaps the U.S. should copy the immigration laws of Mexico? I'd like to
see the compassionate, loving P.L.L.C.F. enter Mexico without a visa
or any other legal status for being there and listen to them howl about
human rights when they're locked up in a Mexican jail. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, you can ask the US Marine that believed he was following the
law when he showed up at Mexico's immigration checkpoint with an
old rifle he was planning on taking with him on his journey across
Mexico. Despite the fact that he presented it to the customs
officials
and told him the US authorities on the US side told him that was
what he needed to do, he was taken immediately to jail and held in
a hell hole for months.

Or the recent case of the American mother, who went to Mexico
for a funeral with her husband. While riding on a public bus, they
get pulled over and the Mexican police find 12 lbs of marijuana
taped under her seat. They said it was hers, despite the fact
that no one on the bus saw her bring what would be an obvious
thing on board. And there were videos showing her boarding the
bus and not carrying it. She only spent a couple weeks in jail.
Nice country, huh. Makes you really want to go there for a
vacation......

On Jun 6, 6:34*am, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/5/2013 7:46 PM, wrote:



On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:07:11 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/5/2013 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:52:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. *Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. *They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? *Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. *Where is that in the Constitution? *Show me. *Now.

It's not in the Constitution,

So you admit that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. *Good, at least we
have that out of the way.

you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger).

Idiot.

It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

Bull****. *Read the Constitution, will ya? *Of course you won't. *You
don't like it and want to see it abolished. *Idiot.

BTW, I was wrong to say it wasn't in the Constitution.

You *certainly* did, you lying sack of ****.
* * "It's not in the Constitution"

See Article One, Section 8, which includes:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Reading the Constitution that "liberally" one can justify *anything*,
including concentration camps. *You really are a dumb****!

I'm really surprised you didn't come up with the "general welfare"
bull**** you idiot lefties usually do, though.

You know, the Commerce Clause. In the Constitution. Of the United States
of America.

You really are a dumb****! *Proven.

Wow! *A twofer. *You really are a stupid ****!

Interesting, then, that the Commerce Clause was used exactly the way I
said it could be used--to curb the excesses of the market. The Sherman
Anti-Trust Act, for example, was enacted to keep monopolies from
distorting the market.

But maybe you're a brain-dead libertarian or Neandertal conservative who
thinks the market takes care of itself for the benefit of everyone. In
that case, I can only shake my head and walk away.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Free markets have hundreds of years of history of them
taking care of things far more efficiently than govt. If I
don't like an Apple product, I can go buy someone else's
PC, phone etc. Where do I go instead of the IRS?

On 6/1/2013 10:10 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote
in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000
in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime, or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers, or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.
Even if politicians wanted to deal with these issues
rationally and on the basis of facts, their voters demand
action on the basis of their perception and enforce this at
the ballot box.

Is the alternative to ignore the issue of fraud and abuse and just
allow
it to happen?

Who said anything so stupid? The exact words.

When I stated that 5% to 10% of the food stamp budget should be used to
investigate cases of fraud and dabuse, posters jumped all over me like
flies on fecal matter.

As they should have.

Why do you think they were saying we should ignore the issue of fraud?

Since the fraud level is only about 1% or 2%. So why would you waste
5-10% of the SNAP budget to investigate that tin y amount?

The only other option is to do nothing about it and the end result will be
hungry and malnourished children.

No, there are many options, which is why the fraud level is pretty much
as low as it gets in any kind of program.


JD, how many people do you know that are using food stamps? How much
time do you spend around them? ^_^

TDD

On 6/2/2013 5:02 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 14:47:13 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 22:38:51 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:42:16 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , "Alex W."
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:19:58 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:34:08 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch
wrote:

On Fri, 31 May 2013 19:22:25 -0700, (Jason)
wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article ,
Free Lunch
wrote:
...
How much are you willing to spend in enforcement to avoid
$1,000 in
fraud?

About 5 to 10 percent of the money spent on the food stamp
program.

So you want to spend billions in enforcement to avoid a
thousand in
waste. How foolish of you.

I meant to investigate cases of possible fraud and abuse.

But fraud and abuse are far less than 5% of the cost now.

Which may be true but is immaterial to the debate since this
is a political issue, and politics is largely the art of
wrestling with and managing public perception. Similar
examples are a perceived crime wave when actual figures show
a downturn in crime, or the view that illegal immgirants are
welfare spongers when the evidence shows they are by and
large extremely hard workers, or the widespread belief that
America spends huge sums on third-world fireign aid when the
actual sums involved are only a tiny part of the budget.
Even if politicians wanted to deal with these issues
rationally and on the basis of facts, their voters demand
action on the basis of their perception and enforce this at
the ballot box.

Is the alternative to ignore the issue of fraud and abuse and
just allow
it to happen?

Who said anything so stupid? The exact words.

When I stated that 5% to 10% of the food stamp budget should be used to
investigate cases of fraud and dabuse, posters jumped all over me like
flies on fecal matter.

Because fraud is only about 1% of the food stamp budget today. Why would
you spend ten times as much as the fraud?

Do you want that money to be taken from your retirement check?

No--taken from the food stamp total budget.

Even though fraud is less than 1-2% of the current expenditure, you want
to cut help for the poor by an additional 5-10% so you can try to track
down a few more people.

You are heartless. You are reminding us, once again, that you mock
Jesus' teachings.

They probably already have
some fraud investigators. Several years ago, they arrested a social worker
that set up phony clients and rented post office boxes for the various
phony clients. She would visit the post office boxes each month and pick
up about a dozen welfare checks and cash them in. I believe she had a
phony ID card for each client. I believe a fraud investigator was
responsible for finding out about what that welfare worker was doing. I
hope she spent some time jail.

Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.


So who's fault is it that a person is poor? Humm, oh I know, it's Bush's
fault! ^_^

TDD

On 6/2/2013 6:18 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/2/2013 6:14 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an
end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud
investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents
sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children
will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for illegal
drugs.


You are certifiable.

I've see EBT card holders sell their credits for 50¢ on the dollar so
they could buy dope or booze. I've also see stores take the cards for
the purchase of beer. Sooner or later the store gets busted but another
store down the street opens and starts doing it again. ^_^

TDD

On 6/2/2013 6:27 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 16:14:34 -0700, (Jason) wrote in
alt.atheism:

In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

That is your guess even though the Department of Agriculture continually
investigates levels of fraud and finds that it it currently around 1% of
benefits. Why should we listen to your ignorant guess when there is
actual evidence?

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for illegal
drugs.

"Many customers".

Jason, you really despise the poor. You are shameless in your
condescension about them. Clearly you hate what Jesus taught about how
we should treat the poor.


I think it's funny that P.L.L.C.F. condemn Conservatives for believing
in Jesus and following their faith. ^_^

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2013 6:23 PM, Free Lunch wrote:

When there is fair income, then we can talk about the "fair tax". As
long as the poor are screwed by the rich, the rich can pay the countries
bills, since they are the ones benefitting.


Hey I know, there was a wonderful P.L.L.C.F. idea to make it law that
everyone must be paid a minimum of $100,000.00 per year. That way poor
people would have enough money to lead a good life. ^_^


One of the most basic pinky tenets is that the poor are screwed by the
rich..
In fact, if you ever have to deal with the so-called "poor", you discover
that they do a pretty good job of screwing themselves.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:

No one asks peckerwoods if they are citizens.


Gee! What a racist comment! ^_^



Yeah, but since a pinky said it, it's perfectly OK...

On 6/5/2013 11:46 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/5/2013 6:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote in
news:kooc6s
:




Probably because of all the built in waste and corruption in any
Democrat sponsored legislation. ^_^



How do you explain Republicans blocking
their OWN legislation?


Probably because of all the built in waste and corruption in any
Democrat/Republican sponsored legislation. ^_^

TDD

Look, now it's pretending to be a libertarian!

I wonder what it'll pretend to be next! This is exciting!

On 6/6/2013 7:58 AM, wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:24 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 6/3/2013 8:12 AM, wrote:





On Jun 2, 10:50 pm, Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:
(Jason) wrote :

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:11:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote in alt.atheism:

On Jun 2, 9:43 am, Free Lunch wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks like they might be' is a civil rights violation.

What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look
for Innuit ?

My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of
Northern European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law
would be safe even if he were an illegal immigrant.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Arresting illegal aliens is not bigotry. What is in fact bigotted
is your implying that an Italian-American enforcing immigration
law makes him racist.

I'm noting that he is a man who has no understanding of history.

The court case showed that he was racist and bigoted and that he was
engaging in illegal actions in the way he enforced the law.

The supreme court said it was OK for his officers to check the
immigration status of people they pull over for committing traffic
violations or other types of law violations.

They cannot jail them just for suspicion of illegal entry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Who ever claimed that they ever intended to do that? Just you libs,
who didn't even read the law. Geeez

Perhaps the U.S. should copy the immigration laws of Mexico? I'd like to
see the compassionate, loving P.L.L.C.F. enter Mexico without a visa
or any other legal status for being there and listen to them howl about
human rights when they're locked up in a Mexican jail. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, you can ask the US Marine that believed he was following the
law when he showed up at Mexico's immigration checkpoint with an
old rifle he was planning on taking with him on his journey across
Mexico. Despite the fact that he presented it to the customs
officials
and told him the US authorities on the US side told him that was
what he needed to do, he was taken immediately to jail and held in
a hell hole for months.

Or the recent case of the American mother, who went to Mexico
for a funeral with her husband. While riding on a public bus, they
get pulled over and the Mexican police find 12 lbs of marijuana
taped under her seat. They said it was hers, despite the fact
that no one on the bus saw her bring what would be an obvious
thing on board. And there were videos showing her boarding the
bus and not carrying it. She only spent a couple weeks in jail.
Nice country, huh. Makes you really want to go there for a
vacation......


Mexican authorities have a hell of a time with illegal immigrants
invading their country from South American. It's a felony to be an
illegal immigrant in Mexico. ^_^

TDD

On 6/6/2013 7:37 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/3/2013 10:36 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/3/2013 1:41 AM, Jason wrote:
In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and hands
them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be
safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop
would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's
undocumented?

Arizona shares a border with Mexico and as a result, it's easy for
illegal
immigrants to travel from Mexico to Arizona.

If people in Arizona have legal driver's licenses and/or legal green
cards
they have nothing to be concerned about.


That's not true. If an American citizen is stopped and asked for their
green card, or any form of identification as a legal resident, other
than a driver's license, they have something to be concerned about.
Their family could have lived in the same place for 10 generations, but
still speak Spanish and not be carrying their birth certificate.

In those cases, and they *have* happened, the person involved could very
well be quite inconvenienced and subjected to harassment and humiliation
for the crime of Driving While Brown.

IT HAPPENS. This isn't theoretical.

You won't get it.

So their family has been in The United States for generations and still
not been assimilated into American society? Humm, sounds a bit odd. o_O

TDD
I suppose it would to you.

On 6/6/2013 7:37 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:36:00 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/3/2013 1:41 AM, Jason wrote:
In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and
hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't
look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be
safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop
would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's
undocumented?

Arizona shares a border with Mexico and as a result, it's easy for
illegal
immigrants to travel from Mexico to Arizona.

If people in Arizona have legal driver's licenses and/or legal green
cards
they have nothing to be concerned about.


That's not true. If an American citizen is stopped and asked for their
green card, or any form of identification as a legal resident, other
than a driver's license, they have something to be concerned about.
Their family could have lived in the same place for 10 generations, but
still speak Spanish and not be carrying their birth certificate.

In those cases, and they *have* happened, the person involved could very
well be quite inconvenienced and subjected to harassment and humiliation
for the crime of Driving While Brown.

IT HAPPENS. This isn't theoretical.

You won't get it.

No one asks peckerwoods if they are citizens.


Gee! What a racist comment! ^_^

TDD
So?

On 6/6/2013 8:04 AM, wrote:
On Jun 6, 6:34 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/5/2013 7:46 PM, wrote:



On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:07:11 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/5/2013 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:52:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. Where is that in the Constitution? Show me. Now.

It's not in the Constitution,

So you admit that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. Good, at least we
have that out of the way.

you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger).

Idiot.

It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

Bull****. Read the Constitution, will ya? Of course you won't. You
don't like it and want to see it abolished. Idiot.

BTW, I was wrong to say it wasn't in the Constitution.

You *certainly* did, you lying sack of ****.
"It's not in the Constitution"

See Article One, Section 8, which includes:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Reading the Constitution that "liberally" one can justify *anything*,
including concentration camps. You really are a dumb****!

I'm really surprised you didn't come up with the "general welfare"
bull**** you idiot lefties usually do, though.

You know, the Commerce Clause. In the Constitution. Of the United States
of America.

You really are a dumb****! Proven.

Wow! A twofer. You really are a stupid ****!

Interesting, then, that the Commerce Clause was used exactly the way I
said it could be used--to curb the excesses of the market. The Sherman
Anti-Trust Act, for example, was enacted to keep monopolies from
distorting the market.

But maybe you're a brain-dead libertarian or Neandertal conservative who
thinks the market takes care of itself for the benefit of everyone. In
that case, I can only shake my head and walk away.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Free markets have hundreds of years of history of them
taking care of things far more efficiently than govt. If I
don't like an Apple product, I can go buy someone else's
PC, phone etc. Where do I go instead of the IRS?

Unregulated 'free markets' remain free just as long as it takes some guy
or combination of guys to figure out how to subvert it for their own
benefit. Then it stops being free.

The only counterbalance to that is government.

On 6/6/2013 9:03 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/2/2013 6:18 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/2/2013 6:14 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their
benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an
end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud
investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents
sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children
will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is
actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for
illegal
drugs.


You are certifiable.

I've see EBT card holders sell their credits for 50¢ on the dollar so
they could buy dope or booze. I've also see stores take the cards for
the purchase of beer. Sooner or later the store gets busted but another
store down the street opens and starts doing it again. ^_^

TDD
And you have reported this, right, doofus?

I heard that the EBT system is fraud proof, and onlly buys food and stuff. You telling me there is ways to scam the fraud proof system?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

I've see EBT card holders sell their credits for 50¢ on the dollar so
they could buy dope or booze. I've also see stores take the cards for
the purchase of beer. Sooner or later the store gets busted but another
store down the street opens and starts doing it again. ^_^

TDD

On Jun 6, 12:02*pm, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/6/2013 8:04 AM, wrote:



On Jun 6, 6:34 am, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/5/2013 7:46 PM, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 13:07:11 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/5/2013 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:52:48 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:53:59 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/4/2013 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:52 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 19:36:20 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:

snip

How in the hell are you going to force dumb asses to eat healthy food?
Pass another law to make us force feed them? Geez! O_o

Who said anything about forcing them?

Making sure they have the education and the information to
make a genuinely informed choice about their food shopping
and intake is enough -- market forces will take care of the
rest.

Idiot. *Market forces *HAVE* taken care of it. *They have *CHOSEN* to
eat crap so that is what is offered.

Which is a very good argument in favor of providing healthy, fresh and
tasty food in schools, building community gardens, and using vacant land
in cities for small commercial truck gardens.

So it'll go uneaten? *Good idea!

Oh, and what you will really hate even more, government and private
charity PSAs and educational programs about health, healthy eating and
fitness.

Showing again what a ****in' idiot you are.

One of the main reasons to have a government at all is to counteract
harmful effects of market forces.

Bull****. *Where is that in the Constitution? *Show me. *Now.

It's not in the Constitution,

So you admit that IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB. *Good, at least we
have that out of the way.

you moron (or moran, if you're a
Teabagger).

Idiot.

It's a rationale behind any modern democratic/republican
government. Read a book, will ya?

Bull****. *Read the Constitution, will ya? *Of course you won't.. *You
don't like it and want to see it abolished. *Idiot.

BTW, I was wrong to say it wasn't in the Constitution.

You *certainly* did, you lying sack of ****.
* * *"It's not in the Constitution"

See Article One, Section 8, which includes:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Reading the Constitution that "liberally" one can justify *anything*,
including concentration camps. *You really are a dumb****!

I'm really surprised you didn't come up with the "general welfare"
bull**** you idiot lefties usually do, though.

You know, the Commerce Clause. In the Constitution. Of the United States
of America.

You really are a dumb****! *Proven.

Wow! *A twofer. *You really are a stupid ****!

Interesting, then, that the Commerce Clause was used exactly the way I
said it could be used--to curb the excesses of the market. The Sherman
Anti-Trust Act, for example, was enacted to keep monopolies from
distorting the market.

But maybe you're a brain-dead libertarian or Neandertal conservative who
thinks the market takes care of itself for the benefit of everyone. In
that case, I can only shake my head and walk away.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Free markets have hundreds of years of history of them
taking care of things far more efficiently than govt. *If I
don't like an Apple product, I can go buy someone else's
PC, phone etc. * Where do I go instead of the IRS?

Unregulated 'free markets' remain free just as long as it takes some guy
or combination of guys to figure out how to subvert it for their own
benefit. Then it stops being free.

The only counterbalance to that is government.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The economic history of the last several hundred years from
around the world says you're wrong. If I don't like an iPhone or
a Ford car, I can buy a Samsung or Toyota. If the IRS is abusing
me, or the Labor Dept is busting my balls, where do I go instead?

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:37:00 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/3/2013 10:36 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
....
That's not true. If an American citizen is stopped and asked for their
green card, or any form of identification as a legal resident, other
than a driver's license, they have something to be concerned about.
Their family could have lived in the same place for 10 generations, but
still speak Spanish and not be carrying their birth certificate.

In those cases, and they *have* happened, the person involved could very
well be quite inconvenienced and subjected to harassment and humiliation
for the crime of Driving While Brown.

IT HAPPENS. This isn't theoretical.

You won't get it.

So their family has been in The United States for generations and still
not been assimilated into American society? Humm, sounds a bit odd. o_O

It's no surprise at all. Cajuns just started assimilating recently.
There's no law that requires Americans to mangle the English language.
We are free to mangle any language.

On 6/6/2013 10:56 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/6/2013 7:37 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/3/2013 5:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:36:00 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/3/2013 1:41 AM, Jason wrote:
In article , Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article ,
(Jason) wrote:

In article ,
Jeanne
Douglas wrote:

In article
,
(Jason) wrote:

In article , Free
Lunch
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:07:36 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net
wrote in alt.atheism:

"Attila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 6/1/2013 8:25 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



What civil right abuse was there ?
Are you claiming that the Feds capturing and deporting
illegal
immigrants is
a "civil right violation"
Or are you claiming that if a State captures them and
hands them
over to the
Feds is a civil rights violation ?

No. Racial profiling based on nothing more than what someone
'looks
like they might be' is a civil rights violation.


What profiling are you babbling about ?
The one where close to the Mexico Border, you don't
look for
Innuit ?


My son in law is a transplanted Scot, will
Shreriff Joe lock him up and hold him to run his
own form of "immigration status investigation"?

For the son of Italian immigrants, Arpaio has taken to nativist
bigotry
pretty quickly. Of course he assumes that all people of Northern
European heritage are here legally so your son-in-law would be
safe even
if he were an illegal immigrant.

You are missing the point. Let's say a cop pulls over a speeder or
someone
that ran a red light. Let's say the driver is a Latino. The cop
would ask
him for his driver's license and his green card.

Why would he ask for his green card?

To check his immigration status as per the supreme court decision.

What possible reason would he have for suspecting that he's
undocumented?

Arizona shares a border with Mexico and as a result, it's easy for
illegal
immigrants to travel from Mexico to Arizona.

If people in Arizona have legal driver's licenses and/or legal green
cards
they have nothing to be concerned about.


That's not true. If an American citizen is stopped and asked for their
green card, or any form of identification as a legal resident, other
than a driver's license, they have something to be concerned about.
Their family could have lived in the same place for 10 generations, but
still speak Spanish and not be carrying their birth certificate.

In those cases, and they *have* happened, the person involved could
very
well be quite inconvenienced and subjected to harassment and
humiliation
for the crime of Driving While Brown.

IT HAPPENS. This isn't theoretical.

You won't get it.

No one asks peckerwoods if they are citizens.


Gee! What a racist comment! ^_^

TDD
So?

Oh the irony. ^_^

TDD

On 6/6/2013 7:55 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:37:00 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote in alt.atheism:

On 6/3/2013 10:36 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
...
That's not true. If an American citizen is stopped and asked for their
green card, or any form of identification as a legal resident, other
than a driver's license, they have something to be concerned about.
Their family could have lived in the same place for 10 generations, but
still speak Spanish and not be carrying their birth certificate.

In those cases, and they *have* happened, the person involved could very
well be quite inconvenienced and subjected to harassment and humiliation
for the crime of Driving While Brown.

IT HAPPENS. This isn't theoretical.

You won't get it.

So their family has been in The United States for generations and still
not been assimilated into American society? Humm, sounds a bit odd. o_O

It's no surprise at all. Cajuns just started assimilating recently.
There's no law that requires Americans to mangle the English language.
We are free to mangle any language.


My Yankee relatives are so much fun when they visit The South here in
Alabamastan. It's so entertaining to be from a multi-species family. ^_^

TDD

On 6/6/2013 11:12 AM, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/6/2013 9:03 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/2/2013 6:18 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
On 6/2/2013 6:14 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 6/2/2013 5:35 PM, Jason wrote:
In article , Free Lunch
wrote:


Good. And why do you want to punish the poor and take their
benefits
away when it was a co-worker of yours who did this?

I don't want the food stamp program or welfare program to be ended.
Instead, I want the fraud problems in those programs to come to an
end.
The only way to do it is to have more fraud investigators.

I don't agree with the posters that don't want more fraud
investigators to
be hired and trained.

Yet, you want to pay for your massive increase in combatting
fraud by
cutting benefits for the poor. You don't give a damn about the poor.

Think about this issue:

The fraud harms the children of poor parents. When the poor parents
sell
food stamps to buy illegal drugs, it means the children of those poor
parents go without food.

If there were more fraud investigations, it means far more children
will
be able to have food to eat.

Don't you agree that would be good thing?


Wouldn't it be better to find out at what rate that scenario is
actually
happening at first? Why assume there is a greater rate of this sort of
fraud than we already know about?

What if adding more fraud investigators cuts into benefits for needy
children, and more children wind up without food than do currently?

Don't you agree that would be a bad thing?

How would we know without having more fraud investigators?

My guess? it's a major problem.

The poll takers should interview drug dealers. They will tell the poll
takers about their many customers that trade food stamp cards for
illegal
drugs.


You are certifiable.

I've see EBT card holders sell their credits for 50¢ on the dollar so
they could buy dope or booze. I've also see stores take the cards for
the purchase of beer. Sooner or later the store gets busted but another
store down the street opens and starts doing it again. ^_^

TDD
And you have reported this, right, doofus?

To whom, I'm not a policeman and the police are well aware of what's
going on. Besides whenever I've reported a crime in the past, no action
was taken so I've pretty much given up wasting my time but I have been
known to body slam someone for harming a child. Oh yea, "Dufas" is
actually a proper surname. Don't be a racist. ^_^

TDD

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:47:49 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote in
:



Lets get The Israelis to give us some tips. Some machine gun
emplacements might help? Heck, I always thought we should recycle all
those land mines that are being dug up all over the world. Funny, how
the thought of death might dissuade someone from committing a crime.
^_^


The farmers and ranchers on the border might
take offense at the government planting mines on
their land...........


Take offence?
Nah.
They'd rake in money by way of compensation from DC for
every head of cattle that explosively turns itself into
hamburger meat thatnks to government mining. It'd be
another source of profit.

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:12:06 -0700, Jason wrote:



Please don't mention the name "Bush" in your response.

OK.

"Brazilian".

SCNR.

"Alex W." wrote in news:12wp7mqnn5ckx$.1lnecus9a5n3h
:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:12:06 -0700, Jason wrote:



Please don't mention the name "Bush" in your response.

OK.

"Brazilian".


President Cameltoe.