Time bomb: After she becomes governor, Napolitano should turn her attention to border vigilantes.
Chuck
> Time bomb
>
> After she becomes governor, Napolitano should turn her attention to
> border vigilantes.
>
> After Janet Napolitano is sworn in as Arizona's new governor on Jan.
> 6, she should immediately focus her attention on the incendiary
> situation building along Arizona's border with Mexico. In that
> sparsely populated landscape, a confrontation looms between heavily
> armed vigilante groups and unarmed Mexican immigrants entering the
> United States illegally.
>
> An aide to the governor-elect said Wednesday that Napolitano would
> like to get the various parties together soon after she takes office.
> Such a meeting should be a top priority. The ugliness growing in the
> vigilante movement demands an immediate and vigorous response.
>
> Congressman-elect Raul Grijalva adopted the appropriate tone Wednesday
> when he said one his first acts after he takes office will be to ask
> the FBI to investigate the links between civilian militias in Southern
> Arizona and white supremacist groups.
>
> Grijalva says three groups that have surfaced in Southern Arizona -
> the American Border Patrol, based in Sierra Vista, Ranch Rescue, from
> Texas, and Civilian Homeland Defense, the brain child of Tombstone
> publisher Chris Simcox - are racist organizations.
>
> Another organization, the Border Action Network, based in Tucson, on
> Wednesday delivered a report on the border militia activity to
> Napolitano and Terry Goddard, the incoming State Attorney General. One
> of the authors of the report said the militia groups that try to
> portray themselves as a local grassroots response to the influx of
> Mexican immigrants are all linked to national white supremacist
> organizations.
>
> Like Grijalva, the Border Action Network has called for an
> investigation of the vigilante groups. It also wants the state to hire
> an independent investigator to monitor complaints that involve
> civilians apprehending illegal border crossers.
>
> While the U.S. Border Patrol is the legal entity responsible for
> security along the U.S. borders, it has clearly been incapable of
> plugging every hole in the permeable membrane that separates Sonora
> from Arizona. It continues to locate and stop an increasing number of
> illegal entrants, as well as drug smugglers, but the volume of illegal
> crossers continues to explode.
>
> Lured by dreams of work, economic stability and a chance to move their
> families out of poverty, wave after wave of Mexican citizens continues
> to wash across the desert in Southern Arizona.
>
> Self-styled vigilante groups have mistakenly decided they are the
> remedy to the nation's border problems. These groups have very little
> support in Arizona's border towns.
>
> Border communities in Cochise County have had enough problems in
> recent years trying to build a tourism base and attract new
> businesses. National publicity casting them as warrens of gun-toting
> racists cannot possibly help.
>
> Residents and business owners fear that once Simcox' militia group
> begins its patrols in January, bullets will start flying and carnage
> is inevitable.
>
> But all of this is not inevitable. Napolitano cannot singlehandedly
> solve immigration issues, but she can bring the considerable resources
> of her office to the table make it clear that vigilantes have no place
> in contemporary Arizona. The governor must act swiftly to abort this
> militia movement before some trigger-happy nut creates mayhem on the
> border.
If her Ladyship was worth a damn she would be pounding Washington to
put troops on the border.
http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/
Chuck
John A. Stovall
>arnold_...@mailcity.com (Arnold Holbrook) wrote in message news:<7e4bfa4a.02122...@posting.google.com>...
>> Time bomb
>>
>> After she becomes governor, Napolitano should turn her attention to
>> border vigilantes.
snipped
>
>If her Ladyship was worth a damn she would be pounding Washington to
>put troops on the border.
>
>http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/
>
>Chuck
No, She would do forget Washington. As governor call up the State
and National Guard and send them to the border. To Hell with
Washington, it's the problem not the solution.
*********************************************************
"...I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson in letters to
Madison (1787) and Rush (1800)
John A. Stovall
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 27 Dec 2002 02:38:11 -0800, Hudson...@yahoo.com (Chuck) wrote:
>
>>arnold_...@mailcity.com (Arnold Holbrook) wrote in message news:<7e4bfa4a.02122...@posting.google.com>...
>>> Time bomb
>>>
>>> After she becomes governor, Napolitano should turn her attention to
>>> border vigilantes.
>snipped
>>
>>If her Ladyship was worth a damn she would be pounding Washington to
>>put troops on the border.
>>
>>http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/
>>
>>Chuck
>
>No, She would do forget Washington. As governor call up the State
Erratum: "do" with "do well"
>and National Guard and send them to the border. To Hell with
>Washington, it's the problem not the solution.
>
>
>*********************************************************
>
>"...I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility
> against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
>
> Thomas Jefferson in letters to
> Madison (1787) and Rush (1800)
*****************************************************
"Lockstep by lockstep, you push them around,
All these good folk who Believe,
Perverting their trust into slavery for life.
Thank you, but I'd rather leave. Escape!
Thank you, but I'd rather leave."
"Anarchist Waltz"
Leslie Fish
Rod McCoy
its citizens. The federal government has failed (miserably) to do its duty
to protect its citizens and secure our borders. Possibly this is due to some
misguided idea that we must work with our neighbors to the south and don't
want to upset our relationship with them by taking the actions necessary. So
the local citizenry is planning to handle the matter themselves. Where is
the problem? I don't see one.
phxbrd
"Rod McCoy" <col...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Bs9P9.542$jE6.29...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
You live in a tight and simplistic little world, don't you? Where will you
find 10 million workers to replace those currently keeping our economy
alive?
SteveR
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The unemployed, perhaps. Legal aliens even.
phxbrd
"SteveR" <texd...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:texdriver-C653E...@netnews.attbi.com...
You believe we have 10 million unemployed? Most legal aliens are already
working.
Never suggest change until you have a superior alternative or two. In this
case, our national survival could hinge upon our actions.
rick...@yahoo.com
Welfare rolls? Nah. Couldn't do that. Couldn't actually MAKE them
work for a living.
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
Without the 2nd Amendment,
the rest are just suggestions.
SteveR
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
A thriving economy depends on a certain amount of immigration (legal) to
continue growth. The laws are there for a reason, just like they exist
in all countries.
To suggest that illegal immigration is a viable answer to labor needs is
very short-sighted, and ignores the tremendous associated costs, not to
mention societal impact.
The argument from those in the building trades - that illegals perform
work others won't do - has several holes. They could just as well use
the same argument to justify non-payment of taxes when they point out
that the cost of doing business legally will add to the cost of a new
house. If an absence of illegal workers proves to be a problem, there
are legal avenuse to alleviate the problem. One is higher wages, which
are artificially supressed by easily exploitable labor - which is one
reason "no-one wants to do the work" - it simply does not pay enough.
By ignoring or encouraging illegal immigration, the taxpayer is
essentially subsidizing the businesses that employ illegals.
Stricter enforcement of laws is not going to bring the country to its
knees. The tremendous influx of unskilled labor, and the services they
demand is not an economic boon, it is an economic nightmare to a system
that was never designed to handle it.
Tiny Human Ferret
Among the 15-million US-citizen unemployed.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle
phxbrd
And you believe that you're the first to notice a problem and so you'll
bring it to attention of our government so far totally unaware of the
situation?
What if our government is totally aware of the situation, and simply
allowing market forces to dictate border traffic? Would you be staggered by
such a situation?
> To suggest that illegal immigration is a viable answer to labor needs is
> very short-sighted, and ignores the tremendous associated costs, not to
> mention societal impact.
What did that mean?
>
> The argument from those in the building trades - that illegals perform
> work others won't do - has several holes. They could just as well use
> the same argument to justify non-payment of taxes when they point out
> that the cost of doing business legally will add to the cost of a new
> house. If an absence of illegal workers proves to be a problem, there
> are legal avenuse to alleviate the problem. One is higher wages, which
> are artificially supressed by easily exploitable labor - which is one
> reason "no-one wants to do the work" - it simply does not pay enough.
More hollow words that ignore the many illegals working for $15/hr and more.
We'll put you in charge of training our unemployed to build houses, OK?
Have you ANY idea what you're getting into?
Aside from "higher wages" for totally unskilled and inexperienced unemployed
here, what other magic do you suggest?
>
> By ignoring or encouraging illegal immigration, the taxpayer is
> essentially subsidizing the businesses that employ illegals.
And making new homes available to the public. Take away 10 million
employees and see how many houses are built for the next ten years or so.
>
> Stricter enforcement of laws is not going to bring the country to its
> knees. The tremendous influx of unskilled labor, and the services they
> demand is not an economic boon, it is an economic nightmare to a system
> that was never designed to handle it.
That's unmitigated babble. You have no plan whatsoever for the replacement
of 10 million workers here.
Put up or shut up.
phxbrd
<rick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:62nr0v4e5j11ob4ou...@4ax.com...
Welfare is drying up anyway, thanks to Billy Blowjob. Do you see any of the
former recipients standing outside Home Depot looking for work?
Would you buy a house built by former welfare slackers?
phxbrd
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
news:3E0DE312...@earthops.net...
> phxbrd wrote:
> >
> > "Rod McCoy" <col...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:Bs9P9.542$jE6.29...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> > > Let me see if I understand this. The state government has failed to
> > protect
> > > its citizens. The federal government has failed (miserably) to do its
duty
> > > to protect its citizens and secure our borders. Possibly this is due
to
> > some
> > > misguided idea that we must work with our neighbors to the south and
don't
> > > want to upset our relationship with them by taking the actions
necessary.
> > So
> > > the local citizenry is planning to handle the matter themselves. Where
is
> > > the problem? I don't see one.
> >
> > You live in a tight and simplistic little world, don't you? Where will
you
> > find 10 million workers to replace those currently keeping our economy
> > alive?
>
> Among the 15-million US-citizen unemployed.
Another one who hasn't given the situation much thought, I see. We'll put
you in charge of training our unemployed to do just farm work. How soon can
you start YOUR training? Will you have enough for tuition?
Have you enough friends to teach all that's necessary to replace all illegal
workers here? Remember they're in all 50 states, and doing every job
imaginable.
SteveR
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Uh, no.
>
> What if our government is totally aware of the situation, and simply
> allowing market forces to dictate border traffic? Would you be staggered by
> such a situation?
No.
>
> > To suggest that illegal immigration is a viable answer to labor needs is
> > very short-sighted, and ignores the tremendous associated costs, not to
> > mention societal impact.
>
> What did that mean?
Cost - economic and societal. It's documented.
>
> >
> > The argument from those in the building trades - that illegals perform
> > work others won't do - has several holes. They could just as well use
> > the same argument to justify non-payment of taxes when they point out
> > that the cost of doing business legally will add to the cost of a new
> > house. If an absence of illegal workers proves to be a problem, there
> > are legal avenuse to alleviate the problem. One is higher wages, which
> > are artificially supressed by easily exploitable labor - which is one
> > reason "no-one wants to do the work" - it simply does not pay enough.
>
> More hollow words that ignore the many illegals working for $15/hr and more.
$15/hr is what I used to pay legals in LA. Illegals go for half that,
but it's tax free cash.
>
> We'll put you in charge of training our unemployed to build houses, OK?
> Have you ANY idea what you're getting into?
Have you any idea of what illegal immigration costs this country?
BTW, I have trained schoolteachers, accountants and furniture makers to
build houses. IT is not very difficult, most people can work a hammer or
shovel. They needn't be architects to bang nails.
>
> Aside from "higher wages" for totally unskilled and inexperienced unemployed
> here, what other magic do you suggest?
Maybe we follow the existing laws and work within the system, which
would have an added benefit of halting exploitation, and tempting folks
into the desert.
What other laws and systems exist within our framework should we ignore?
>
> >
> > By ignoring or encouraging illegal immigration, the taxpayer is
> > essentially subsidizing the businesses that employ illegals.
>
> And making new homes available to the public. Take away 10 million
> employees and see how many houses are built for the next ten years or so.
Unfortunately, this shallow (hollow?) approach ignores all the
downsides, while touting the profit needs of, in this case, one segment
of industry.
Perhaps if we encouraged all of industry to ignore laws that impact
profit, we'll have an economic boom. Think what a house would cost if
the builder could ignore tax laws.
>
> >
> > Stricter enforcement of laws is not going to bring the country to its
> > knees. The tremendous influx of unskilled labor, and the services they
> > demand is not an economic boon, it is an economic nightmare to a system
> > that was never designed to handle it.
>
> That's unmitigated babble. You have no plan whatsoever for the replacement
> of 10 million workers here.
THey will not magically dissapear en masse, and the transition to legal
labor is not only feasible, it is required by law.
Rather than babble in favor of ignoring the law - which is the root of
the problem - why not realistically assume that it will take around a
decade to straighten out the mess. Given the well-documented negative
economic impact of illegal immigration vs the smoke and mirrors numbers
(how do you count those that have no wish to be counted?), I think we
should work within the framework of known impact, and law.
>
> Put up or shut up.
Yes sir.
SteveR
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Are you aware that there are codes, supervisors, and the like to ensure
that a house is properly built, no matter who bangs the nail?
SteveR
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Are you aware that there are legal avenues to employ non-citizens as
migratory farm labor?
Rod McCoy
of law breakers. As for the ten million workers you say we can't do without
I believe we can find the ways to replace ILLEGALS with legals or our own
people.
Jafo
>phxbrd wrote:
>> You live in a tight and simplistic little world, don't you?
>> Where will you find 10 million workers to replace those
>> currently keeping our economy alive?
>Among the 15-million US-citizen unemployed.
Starting with phxbrd's currently useless ass. Draft him for
the job and let him sweat off a few excess pounds.
--
Jafo
Jafo
>Have you enough friends to teach all that's necessary to replace
>all illegal workers here? Remember they're in all 50 states, and
>doing every job imaginable.
'Bird, a hundred and forty years ago you'd have made the same case
for slavery.
--
Jafo
Tiny Human Ferret
Get out the calculator.
Try 250 millions times 6 percent unemployment. That comes out to 15 million
people who want jobs, most of them US citizens.
of course, phxbrd doesn't want you to do the math. Because it generally works
like this:
pomposity + obtuseness + ideologically blinkered == phxbrd
Tiny Human Ferret
There _are_ no Welfare Rolls.
Remember, a bit over five years ago, the Congress voted to end "welfare as we
know it" in five years? doing the math?
Welfare expires entirely and in all ways whatsoever as of the end of this last
fiscal year, and the last Congress never got around to funding even the modern
"lifetime limit of five years" in their last do-nothing session. Also note
that most of the States are in deficit spending now, up to as much as a
25-percent defecit as in the case of California.
Anyone who isn't disabled, retired, or self-funded men of leisure are going to
have to work to survive, charity can't feed 'em.
Oh, the emergency extension of unemployment also ran out yesterday.
By winter's end, I'd hate like heck to be someone who is known to employ
illegal aliens in preference to legal workers.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
> news:3E0DE312...@earthops.net...
> > phxbrd wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rod McCoy" <col...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Bs9P9.542$jE6.29...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > Let me see if I understand this. The state government has failed to protect
> > > > its citizens. The federal government has failed (miserably) to do its duty
> > > > to protect its citizens and secure our borders. Possibly this is due to some
> > > > misguided idea that we must work with our neighbors to the south and don't
> > > > want to upset our relationship with them by taking the actions necessary. So
> > > > the local citizenry is planning to handle the matter themselves. Where is
> > > > the problem? I don't see one.
> > >
> > > You live in a tight and simplistic little world, don't you? Where will you
> > > find 10 million workers to replace those currently keeping our economy
> > > alive?
> >
> > Among the 15-million US-citizen unemployed.
>
> Another one who hasn't given the situation much thought, I see. We'll put
> you in charge of training our unemployed to do just farm work. How soon can
> you start YOUR training?
I don't need it. I have skills in stick-frame housing construction, hardwood
flooring, general stoop labor, and UNIX system administration.
> Will you have enough for tuition?
There will be some people who are unemployed only because the economy isn't
very good right now, who are already very capable teachers. I can teach the
UNIX system administration basics, and a lot of other things.
>
> Have you enough friends to teach all that's necessary to replace all illegal
> workers here? Remember they're in all 50 states, and doing every job
> imaginable.
they're a drop in the bucket compared to the Americans already capably doing
that sort of work, who will probably be mostly glad to teach their fellow
citizens instead of watching their fellow citizens be made to suffer because
they cannot work as cheaply as illegal aliens.
Aren't you tired of getting shot down in flames in every newsgroup wher you
try these risable and hysterical arguments?
phxbrd
That's the most naive statement I've seen in the five years I've posted on
the topic. Congratulations!
Jeezis will show the way, innit?
phxbrd
> Rod McCoy wrote:
> >
> > You are correct. To survive as a nation of laws we must stop this
invasion
> > of law breakers. As for the ten million workers you say we can't do
without
> > I believe we can find the ways to replace ILLEGALS with legals or our
own
> > people.
>
>
> Get out the calculator.
>
> Try 250 millions times 6 percent unemployment. That comes out to 15
million
> people who want jobs, most of them US citizens.
>
> of course, phxbrd doesn't want you to do the math. Because it generally
works
> like this:
>
> pomposity + obtuseness + ideologically blinkered == phxbrd
250 million? Ye gads, that leaves what, 37 million to keep house and mind
the kids? I guess it would also include the retired and disabled, so cut
that in half. That means 18.5 million to fix dinner tonight and screw a
significant other. There's gonna be a lot of dangerously horny men within
days.
Actually, I highly suggest you do the math again - just a suggestion of
course....
phxbrd
You've never built a house in your life, nor do I think you ever even stood
real close to a builder. You're more like an idiot.
You're talking with a real live ex-contractor once licensed by the state of
Michigan and experienced in Texas and Arizona building. I've seen shit sold
as apple butter more than once, and would never buy any house I helped build
for a tract developer. They're all trash, illegal alien workers or not.
Tradesmen only work the way they're told to work, even when they know
better. "Kick sawdust and candy wrappers over the busted sill plate? Sure,
no problem. The inspector's an idiot or on the take - if he even shows
up....".
phxbrd
> By winter's end, I'd hate like heck to be someone who is known to employ
> illegal aliens in preference to legal workers.
I have connections, and can get you into work in the Arizona onion fields.
All you have to do is show you can work as fast as the ones doing it now.
Should be no problem for you, right? Having faith in you, I've already
challenged the fastest picker there in your name. He's looking forward to
meeting you.
In the event they whip you into bloody rags, I can later show you where to
stand for loading/unloading trucks. Wave your birth certificate and a
toothpick when they promise to kill you there.
phxbrd
Are there comparable ways and means for every other category where illegals
presently work? How about amnesty for those here already? Gathering them
up is an absurd concept. How about retinal scans and picture ids for all
who legally apply in the future?
Pretending that present unemployed will take over all jobs currently held by
illegals is amazingly stupid. Some inexperienced here evidently feel
capable of taking on jobs others have held for decades - amazing.
If you wanna see what happens when you send slackers outdoors to work, look
up Public Works Administration, or WPA.
phxbrd
"Jafo" <jafo@_cheetah.net> wrote in message
news:4d3s0vgur6s10t7n3...@4ax.com...
Nevermind that, dirty old man - just tell how YOU'LL replace all illegal
workers!
Surely you don't seek the economic ruin of the country, but why else would
you advocate round-up of 15,000,000* working illegals without a plan to
replace them?
*It wasn't too long ago this figure was 5,000,000. Will you claim
25,000,000 soon?
phxbrd
That's not how you spell "The smart old fucker has humiliated me again -
time to fire up the ad hominem machine because I can't begin to meet him
head-on!".
Way to go, Ace....
Jafo
>"Jafo" wrote...
>> phxbrd wrote:
>> >Have you enough friends to teach all that's necessary to replace
>> >all illegal workers here? Remember they're in all 50 states, and
>> >doing every job imaginable.
>> 'Bird, a hundred and forty years ago you'd have made the same case
>> for slavery.
>Nevermind that, dirty old man - just tell how YOU'LL replace all
>illegal workers!
"Never mind that"? So slavery's OK by you if that's what it takes,
'bird?
>Surely you don't seek the economic ruin of the country, but why else
>would you advocate round-up of 15,000,000* working illegals without
>a plan to replace them?
The free ride would be over for many, including most likely yourself.
>*It wasn't too long ago this figure was 5,000,000. Will you claim
>25,000,000 soon?
I haven't made any specific numerical claims at all. Putting words
in my mouth, 'bird?
--
Jafo
SteveR
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
LOL - loosen them panties, fella.
>
> You're talking with a real live ex-contractor once licensed by the state of
> Michigan and experienced in Texas and Arizona building.
Sorry, only built house in Malibu and west LA, so I bow to your
superiority.
I've seen shit sold
> as apple butter more than once, and would never buy any house I helped build
> for a tract developer.
Would you mind posting those that you've worked for, so we can avoid
your handiwork as well?
> They're all trash, illegal alien workers or not.
So, you do agree that supervision and building codes are the primary
quality control, and that indeed, anyone can build a house within those
constraints.
I like illegals, myself. I get to exploit them and put the money in my
pocket - screw the law. Svrew the homebuyer to, they never saw a red
cent of the profits I made off the expoitable class.
> Tradesmen only work the way they're told to work, even when they know
> better. "Kick sawdust and candy wrappers over the busted sill plate? Sure,
> no problem. The inspector's an idiot or on the take - if he even shows
> up....".
You can find that in any business. Heard of Enron?
SteveR
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Sure, that's a great carrot to get people into locked semis and the
desert. Sccrew those dummys that wait in line, talk about clueless
dolts, eh?
Gathering them
> up is an absurd concept. How about retinal scans and picture ids for all
> who legally apply in the future?
How about we enforce follow existing law? You get caught, you go home.
>
> Pretending that present unemployed will take over all jobs currently held by
> illegals is amazingly stupid. Some inexperienced here evidently feel
> capable of taking on jobs others have held for decades - amazing.
Pretending that wholesale abuse of law is anything less than a path to
anarchy is somewhat amazing as well.
John A. Stovall
snipped
>Pretending that wholesale abuse of law is anything less than a path to
>anarchy is somewhat amazing as well.
We can only hope it would be. Anarchy is better than government any
day.
*****************************************************
"What kind of God has your Nation become?
Something to make people serve?
You're standing on merit you've long since worn out.
I'm only what you deserve. Little me!
I'm only what you deserve."
"Anarchist Waltz"
Leslie Fish
SteveR
John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:22:16 GMT, SteveR <texd...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> snipped
> >Pretending that wholesale abuse of law is anything less than a path to
> >anarchy is somewhat amazing as well.
>
> We can only hope it would be. Anarchy is better than government any
> day.
How would you know?
Jafo
>"Jafo" wrote...
>> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>> >phxbrd wrote:
>> >> You live in a tight and simplistic little world, don't you?
>> >> Where will you find 10 million workers to replace those
>> >> currently keeping our economy alive?
>> >Among the 15-million US-citizen unemployed.
>> Starting with phxbrd's currently useless ass. Draft him for
>> the job and let him sweat off a few excess pounds.
>That's not how you spell "The smart old fucker has humiliated
>me again - time to fire up the ad hominem machine because I can't
>begin to meet him head-on!".
In your wet dreams, 'bird. In the meantime, why don't you go check
for prices at the slave auction? Your lawn needs mowing.
--
Jafo
Neal Atkins
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>We can only hope it would be. Anarchy is better than government any
>day.
Well get your ass to Somalia. Or Checnya.
rick...@yahoo.com
Who's talking about buying houses? How about picked vegetables?
Cut lawns? I don't think the slackers could screw it up too bad.
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
Without the 2nd Amendment,
the rest are just suggestions.
Larry Jandro
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> tapped on a keyboard and said:
> Try 250 millions times 6 percent unemployment. That comes out to
> 15 million people who want jobs, most of them US citizens.
Wrong. I don't have the exact numbers, but about two-thirds of the
population are not considered to be employable. that's because they
are children, retired, etc.
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Little John
once again proving the problem is located between the seat and the keyboard,
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> two-fingered to all:
|>Are there comparable ways and means for every other category where illegals
|>presently work?
For the majority, yes. For some, no. Therefore... (see next response, below)
|>How about amnesty for those here already?
If they're already here, and working, under work permit house arrest, give them
a short reprieve while their application to remain in country is processed. If
approved, they stay. If not, they go.
|>Gathering them up is an absurd concept.
We should just disband the various law enforcement agencies altogether then,
shouldn't we? If we're to give up every time someone breaks the law because
it's just too darned tough to enforce it, then golly, why bother at all? Why
bother with detectives, and crime labs, and prisons, and jails, and criminal
courts. Let anarchy reign. The return of jungle law and the law of the west.
The one upside to that would be the elimination of attorneys.
jammin1 at jammin1 dot com
If you ain't in bed by 11...Go home!
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
> news:3E0E251C...@earthops.net...
> > Rod McCoy wrote:
> > >
> > > You are correct. To survive as a nation of laws we must stop this
> invasion
> > > of law breakers. As for the ten million workers you say we can't do
> without
> > > I believe we can find the ways to replace ILLEGALS with legals or our
> own
> > > people.
> >
> >
> > Get out the calculator.
> >
> > Try 250 millions times 6 percent unemployment. That comes out to 15
> million
> > people who want jobs, most of them US citizens.
> >
> > of course, phxbrd doesn't want you to do the math. Because it generally
> works
> > like this:
> >
> > pomposity + obtuseness + ideologically blinkered == phxbrd
>
> 250 million? Ye gads, that leaves what, 37 million to keep house and mind
> the kids?
"Homemakers" are not numbered among the "unemployed".
> I guess it would also include the retired and disabled, so cut
> that in half.
It absolutely doesn't include the retired and disabled. By definition,
"unemployed" is calculated on the numbers of persons who are fit to work, and
are looking for work.
Nice attempt of use of fuzzy logic.
> That means 18.5 million to fix dinner tonight and screw a
> significant other. There's gonna be a lot of dangerously horny men within
> days.
Non-sequitur.
>
> Actually, I highly suggest you do the math again - just a suggestion of
> course....
--
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On 28 Dec 2002, Tiny Human Ferret
> <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> tapped on a keyboard and said:
>
> > Try 250 millions times 6 percent unemployment. That comes out to
> > 15 million people who want jobs, most of them US citizens.
>
> Wrong. I don't have the exact numbers, but about two-thirds of the
> population are not considered to be employable. that's because they
> are children, retired, etc.
This is a totally ridiculous claim. The largest bulge in the demographic are
the Baby Boomers.
First, The population of the U.S. on April 1, 2000 was 281,421,906 according
to http://www.census.gov/
From http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t9/tab01.txt
Total population 281,421,906
Under 5 years 19,175,798
5 to 9 years 20,549,505
10 to 14 years 20,528,072
15 to 19 years 20,219,890
-------------------------------------
Total: 80,473,265
65 to 69 years 9,533,545
70 to 74 years 8,857,441
75 to 79 years 7,415,813
80 to 84 years 4,945,367
85 years and over 4,239,587
-------------------------------------
Total: 28,317,521
Combining all of those too young to work (fudging the fact that some
20,219,890+ minors are allowed to work less than full-time hours) with all of
those old enough for mandatory retirement (some 28,317,521):
We get 48,537,411 persons either too young or too old to work.
Subtract that number from total population, and you get:
232,884,495 persons of working age.
If you add the 20,219,890 persons between 14 and 19 who are eligible to work
part-time, you wind up with 253,104,385 persons in the US who are of working
age.
Therefor, whoever told you that 2/3rds of the population is unable to work,
should be found and told to their face that they are a delusional twit and
should never be permitted to speak in public, much less vote.
Tiny Human Ferret
Heh, you just fell for the patented "phxbrd troll them off of the topic by any
means necessary" ploy.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> > By winter's end, I'd hate like heck to be someone who is known to employ
> > illegal aliens in preference to legal workers.
>
> I have connections, and can get you into work in the Arizona onion fields.
> All you have to do is show you can work as fast as the ones doing it now.
All their employer has to do is to prove that his workers are working legally.
> Should be no problem for you, right? Having faith in you, I've already
> challenged the fastest picker there in your name. He's looking forward to
> meeting you.
Why the hell would I drive cross-continent so you can have some field hand
kick the crap out of me at your behest?
Well, I knew it was only a matter of time until your delusions led you to
violence.
>
> In the event they whip you into bloody rags, I can later show you where to
> stand for loading/unloading trucks. Wave your birth certificate and a
> toothpick when they promise to kill you there.
See! Once again, the violence in support of illegal aliens and against US
citizens, who only want to work.
I guess we all can see where you're coming from, can't we.
BTW -- I don't _need_ a job picking onions. If the _country_ needs me to pick
onions, they know where to find me.
Tiny Human Ferret
In your fondest dreams, and in the nightmares of about 60 percent of citizens
polled.
> Gathering them
> up is an absurd concept.
Not at all! Round 'em up, ship 'em out, prevent re-entry, wave buh-bye at them
as they leave.
> How about retinal scans and picture ids for all
> who legally apply in the future?
Already this is the law.
>
> Pretending that present unemployed will take over all jobs currently held by
> illegals is amazingly stupid.
Nice bald assertion. Care to substantiate it?
> Some inexperienced here evidently feel
> capable of taking on jobs others have held for decades - amazing.
>
> If you wanna see what happens when you send slackers outdoors to work, look
> up Public Works Administration, or WPA.
Hrm, roads being built is slacking. I see.
Tiny Human Ferret
And phxbrd would be out of work.
Tiny Human Ferret
It's probably right around 9 - 10 millions of illegals, to use the best
estimates.
And how do we replace them?
All of the people who are falling off of welfare, having used up their
lifetime limits, will be told where job-openings have been left by the
deportations of illegals. Not having much choice, they will go and do the
work. And, they will do it for the legal minimum wage and under the required
safety regs, with taxes withheld, etc.
Everyone benefits. It's a great idea.
and despite your bitching, it will happen.
Larry Jandro
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> tapped on a keyboard and said:
> This is a totally ridiculous claim. The largest bulge in the
> demographic are the Baby Boomers.
>
> First, The population of the U.S. on April 1, 2000 was
> 281,421,906 according to http://www.census.gov/
>
> From http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t9/tab01.txt
>
> Total population 281,421,906
> Under 5 years 19,175,798
> 5 to 9 years 20,549,505
> 10 to 14 years 20,528,072
> 15 to 19 years 20,219,890
> -------------------------------------
> Total: 80,473,265
>
>
>
> 65 to 69 years 9,533,545
> 70 to 74 years 8,857,441
> 75 to 79 years 7,415,813
> 80 to 84 years 4,945,367
> 85 years and over 4,239,587
> -------------------------------------
> Total: 28,317,521
^^^^^^^^^^
That number is incorrect. Should be 34,991,753. Add them
yourself.
Even when corrected, the two totals do not equal the population,
so where are the rest of the approximately 166 million people..?
>
> Combining all of those too young to work (fudging the fact that
> some 20,219,890+ minors are allowed to work less than full-time
> hours) with all of those old enough for mandatory retirement
> (some 28,317,521):
Teenagers working part-time are not counted as part of the general
workforce for purposes of calculating unemployment.
> We get 48,537,411 persons either too young or too old to work.
>
> Subtract that number from total population, and you get:
> 232,884,495 persons of working age.
You've forgotten the sick, those in prison, and other millions who
simply CHOOSE to not be part of the workforce.
> If you add the 20,219,890 persons between 14 and 19 who are
> eligible to work part-time, you wind up with 253,104,385 persons
> in the US who are of working age.
Your math leaves me bewildered. But so what..? Even if the
figure were correct, being of working age is meaningless if they
can't work or choose not to work.
Tiny Human Ferret
I stand corrected, thanks.
>
> Even when corrected, the two totals do not equal the population,
> so where are the rest of the approximately 166 million people..?
Those are the people between the limits? You didn't read?
Total Population: 281,421,906
Too Young and Too Old: 115,465,018
------------------------------------
Working Age: 165,956,888
> >
> > Combining all of those too young to work (fudging the fact that
> > some 20,219,890+ minors are allowed to work less than full-time
> > hours) with all of those old enough for mandatory retirement
> > (some 28,317,521):
>
> Teenagers working part-time are not counted as part of the general
> workforce for purposes of calculating unemployment.
>
> > We get 48,537,411 persons either too young or too old to work.
> >
> > Subtract that number from total population, and you get:
> > 232,884,495 persons of working age.
>
> You've forgotten the sick, those in prison, and other millions who
> simply CHOOSE to not be part of the workforce.
How are they relevant? See above, the defininition of persons "unemployed",
which is to say, persons who are able to work, and who want to work.
Six percent of the population are "unemployed", meaning that they are able to
work (not in prison, not sick, not disabled, not mentally-incompetent) and
want to, but cannot find work.
>
> > If you add the 20,219,890 persons between 14 and 19 who are
> > eligible to work part-time, you wind up with 253,104,385 persons
> > in the US who are of working age.
>
> Your math leaves me bewildered. But so what..? Even if the
> figure were correct, being of working age is meaningless if they
> can't work or choose not to work.
See above. Either you're trying to misunderstand -- but thanks for checking
the math -- or you're trying to offer a false lead or red-herring, refuted
above. Judging from your consistent attempts to redirect my posts only to
az.general I will presume it's the latter.
G'DAy.
phxbrd
"D. Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:auni9u$voc$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> "phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:auki0g$83df5$1...@ID-149074.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Rod McCoy" <col...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:Bs9P9.542$jE6.29...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> > > Let me see if I understand this. The state government has failed to
> > protect
> > > its citizens. The federal government has failed (miserably) to do its
duty
> > > to protect its citizens and secure our borders. Possibly this is due
to
> > some
> > > misguided idea that we must work with our neighbors to the south and
don't
> > > want to upset our relationship with them by taking the actions
necessary.
> > So
> > > the local citizenry is planning to handle the matter themselves. Where
is
> > > the problem? I don't see one.
> >
> > You live in a tight and simplistic little world, don't you? Where will
you
> > find 10 million workers to replace those currently keeping our economy
> > alive?
>
> our economy alive.
1. You're an asshole
2. Very few Mexicans are uneducated
3. You're an asshole
4. The greatest majority of US welfare titters are white
5. You're an asshole
6. You know jack shit about our economy
7. You're an asshole
(There's more, but it gets repetitious.)
SteveR
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Illegals tend to be the uneducated ones.
>
> 3. You're an asshole
>
> 4. The greatest majority of US welfare titters are white
Raw numbers or statistical representions of population percentage?
How would you asess the services required by illegal aliens when no-one
administering those services is permitted to ask a persons citizenship
status?
After all, it's that pesky statistical element that blows argument that
most serial killers are white men.
TFW
"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote
My last South of the Border Report card said
1. You're an asshole
2. Very few Whites are uneducated
3. You're an asshole
4. The greatest majority of US welfare titters are Mexicans
John A. Stovall
>
>"phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>My last South of the Border Report card said
>
>1. You're an asshole
>
>2. Very few Whites are uneducated
Look at White's SAT's now to 20 years ago?
>
>3. You're an asshole
>
>4. The greatest majority of US welfare titters are Mexicans
>
Wrong they are white.
There's a lot of white trash out there.
*****************************************************
"I landed in this country,
One year of life to give,
My only friend a weapon,
My only prayer to live."
"Boonie Rats"
John M. Del Vecchio
"The 13th Valley"
phxbrd
> > > Ten million uneducated Mexican parasites aren't keeping
> > > our economy alive.
> >
> > 1. You're an asshole
> >
> > 2. Very few Mexicans are uneducated
>
>
> Illegals tend to be the uneducated ones.
So those here are "Very few Mexicans"? Well, that revelation puts the
entire "problem" to bed then, innit?
>
> >
> > 3. You're an asshole
> >
> > 4. The greatest majority of US welfare titters are white
>
> Raw numbers or statistical representions of population percentage?
Raw numbers, I imagine. I've never seen the gummnt claim jiggered to prove
anything else.
>
> How would you asess the services required by illegal aliens when no-one
> administering those services is permitted to ask a persons citizenship
> status?
As adequate, one presumes.
>
>
> After all, it's that pesky statistical element that blows argument that
> most serial killers are white men.
When they're really Mexicans, right?
Jason Steiner
> John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > We can only hope it would be. Anarchy is better than government any
> > day.
>
> Well get your ass to Somalia. Or Checnya.
Actually, Somalia is doing pretty well these days. They have one
of the best telecommunications systems in Africa.
CIA World Factbook 2002
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html
Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed
to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless
services in most major cities and offer the lowest international
call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking
sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the
country, handling between $200 million and $500 million in
remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of
goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue
to operate, and security is provided by militias. Ongoing civil
disturbances and clan rivalries, however, have interfered with any
broad-based economic development and international aid arrangements.
Considering the disaster that foreign aid has been to many other
countries, I don't think that's a bad thing. Usually foreign aid just
gets hijacked by one particular warlord who then goes about using
half the money to enslave the rest of the population, and tucking the
other half away into his own personal Swiss bank accounts.
Sustainable, home-grown growth is much preferable, and that's what
Somalia's getting.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
Neal Atkins
<ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
>> Well get your ass to Somalia. Or Checnya.
>
>Actually, Somalia is doing pretty well these days. They have one
>of the best telecommunications systems in Africa.
>
> CIA World Factbook 2002
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html
>
> Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed
> to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless
> services in most major cities and offer the lowest international
> call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking
> sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the
> country, handling between $200 million and $500 million in
> remittances annually.
Wow. With a population of 10 million, that must mean that each
individual banks $20-50 EACH a year. I wonder if they have 401K's?
> Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of
> goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue
> to operate, and security is provided by militias. Ongoing civil
> disturbances and clan rivalries, however, have interfered with any
> broad-based economic development and international aid arrangements.
And you can chew all the khat you can afford. Probably not many
lawyers either.
>
>Considering the disaster that foreign aid has been to many other
>countries, I don't think that's a bad thing. Usually foreign aid just
>gets hijacked by one particular warlord who then goes about using
>half the money to enslave the rest of the population, and tucking the
>other half away into his own personal Swiss bank accounts.
All "foreign aid" should be stopped.
>
>Sustainable, home-grown growth is much preferable, and that's what
>Somalia's getting.
Yeah, I'm sure Mr. Stovall will be quite happy there.
John A. Stovall
How would you know it's not?
******************************************************************
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached
at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,
by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom or the
virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at
every transaction, noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped,
measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished,
prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished."
"General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century"
Pierre Proudhon
John A. Stovall
wrote:
First you need to learn to spell, it's Chechnya.
Secondly it's not in a state of Anarchy. It's a revolutionary war
where Chechnya is trying to throw out the Russian occupation forces
and go it's own way.
Trying learning about things.
Nor is Somalia in a state of Anarchy. It is currently clans and
subclans jocking for power in an transition government headed by
Interim Prime Minister Ali Khalif Galayhd.
Really you need to learn some things first.
Besides I'm an Anarcho-Capitilist and neither of those areas look like
they have a stable market for Freedom set up yet.
You must really like being a slave of the state to want everyone to
share you misery.
******************************************************
"What makes Society holy as hell?
What makes you think it's so rare?
People make rules as they live all the time.
Morals come cheaper than air. Cheaper than dirt!
Morals come cheaper than air."
"Anarchist Waltz"
Leslie Fish
Neal Atkins
<johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>We can only hope it would be. Anarchy is better than government any
>>>day.
>>
>>Well get your ass to Somalia. Or Checnya.
>
>First you need to learn to spell, it's Chechnya.
Wow. An anarchist and a spelling Nazi. How quaint.
>Nor is Somalia in a state of Anarchy. It is currently clans and
>subclans jocking for power in an transition government headed by
>Interim Prime Minister Ali Khalif Galayhd.
So it doesn't fit your definition of "anarchy". Too bad. Somalia is
about as close to "anarchy" as any place I know of in the world. YOU
are the one that said "Anarchy is better than government any
day." aren't you?
>Besides I'm an Anarcho-Capitilist and neither of those areas look like
>they have a stable market for Freedom set up yet.
YOU are the one that said"Anarchy is better than government any
day.", aren't you? Are you now saying you have to WAIT to find your
perfect anarchist non-country?
>
>You must really like being a slave of the state to want everyone to
>share you misery.
Oh no. I'd much prefer to have a GOVERNMENT that taxes someone else,
gives me everything I want and crushes my enemys. But since that
UTOPIA is not achieable, I want a government that taxes fairly,
provides services, leaves me alone to pursue my own happiness and
protects me from enemys, foreign and domestic.
Your proposal of "anarchy" or "Anarcho-Capitilism" is not only
pollyannish and unatainable, it is self-defeating.
Stephan Rothstein
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 15:17:27 -0700, Jason Steiner
> <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well get your ass to Somalia. Or Checnya.
>>
>>Actually, Somalia is doing pretty well these days. They have one
>>of the best telecommunications systems in Africa.
>>
>> CIA World Factbook 2002
>> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html
>>
>> Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed
>> to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless
>> services in most major cities and offer the lowest international
>> call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking
>> sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the
>> country, handling between $200 million and $500 million in
>> remittances annually.
>
>
> Wow. With a population of 10 million, that must mean that each
> individual banks $20-50 EACH a year. I wonder if they have 401K's?
As usual Neal, your math is accurate and your logic is faulty. If I
deposit $1,000 in a checking account and then write 10 checks on it for
$100 each, the bank has had a deposit of $1,000 and it doesn't mean I
have banked anything.
Steve Rothstein
Neal Atkins
<srot...@grandecom.net> wrote:
>>> sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the
>>> country, handling between $200 million and $500 million in
>>> remittances annually.
>>
>>
>> Wow. With a population of 10 million, that must mean that each
>> individual banks $20-50 EACH a year. I wonder if they have 401K's?
>
>As usual Neal, your math is accurate and your logic is faulty. If I
>deposit $1,000 in a checking account and then write 10 checks on it for
>$100 each, the bank has had a deposit of $1,000 and it doesn't mean I
>have banked anything.
Semantics. Somalia has 10 million people. Half the population of
Texas. What are the "remittances" of financial institutions in Texas?
Think it's more than $1 billion per year? Or per DAY?
Jason Steiner
These are money exchange services used to get money into and out of
the country. Not financial institutions in general. There's no doubt
that Somalia is not a wealthy country, I'm merely pointing out that
despite the lack of a centralized government it's not particularly
uncivilized either. And if they're honest and hard working enough to
form such institutions on their own, then I predict that the wealth
will come.
Alan Moore
wrote:
That's as may be, but has little to do with immigration.
>
>2. Very few Mexicans are uneducated
According to the center for immigration studies, over 64 per cent of
Mexican immigrants between the ages of 25 and 64 have not completed
high school. This compares unfavorably with "all immigrants" in the
same age range (31.2 per cent) and US natives (under 10 percent).
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/labor.html
Perhaps most Mexicans are well educated, but they aren't the ones
coming here.
>
>3. You're an asshole
>
>4. The greatest majority of US welfare titters are white
What's a welfare titter?
>
>5. You're an asshole
>
>6. You know jack shit about our economy
Who knows any more than that? Even the economics professors know very
little about it, in the sense of being able to make useful
predictions.
>
>7. You're an asshole
>
>(There's more, but it gets repetitious.)
Come back when you have some actual facts.
Al Moore
phxbrd
"Alan Moore" <alan.s...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:fj9c1v0vntc559lqd...@4ax.com...
This is telling information. Thank you for bringing it here.
I see where the complement, or 36% of those polled evidently turned out to
have graduated high school or beyond. The 64% you quote indicates that they
could have left school anytime before graduating high school. At the very
least, all the Mexicans polled had attended school to an indeterminate
average level, but certainly enough to avoid the misapplication of the label
"uneducated".
You're a racist bigot, and you've just pissed down your own leg.
Alan Moore
wrote:
Hmm. For some strange value of "educated", perhaps. As compared,
either with other immigrants, or with native born citizens, however,
Mexicans are relatively uneducated. Perhaps you have some other
facts, like the well-developed Mexican intellectual tradition, the
impressive Mexican contributions to the arts, sciences and human
welfare, that you could point us to. Don't worry, we'll wait.
>
>You're a racist bigot, and you've just pissed down your own leg.
>
Are you asserting that Mexicans are a race, as distinct from, say,
Guatamalans? As for me, the newcomers to the area where I live that I
dislike most are mostly of the same race I am. Thank you for pointing
out that piss runs uphill.
Al Moore
phxbrd
phxbrd
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:34:53 -0700, "phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Moore" <alan.s...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:fj9c1v0vntc559lqd...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 16:03:47 -0700, "phxbrd" <phx...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >2. Very few Mexicans are uneducated
> >>
> >> According to the center for immigration studies, over 64 per cent of
> >> Mexican immigrants between the ages of 25 and 64 have not completed
> >> high school.
> >
> >This is telling information. Thank you for bringing it here.
> >
> >I see where the complement, or 36% of those polled evidently turned out
to
> >have graduated high school or beyond. The 64% you quote indicates that
they
> >could have left school anytime before graduating high school. At the
very
> >least, all the Mexicans polled had attended school to an indeterminate
> >average level, but certainly enough to avoid the misapplication of the
label
> >"uneducated".
>
> Hmm. For some strange value of "educated", perhaps. As compared,
> either with other immigrants, or with native born citizens, however,
> Mexicans are relatively uneducated.
I wonder how you'd feel if you found that Mexico's literacy rate is about
the same as ours?
Perhaps you have some other
> facts, like the well-developed Mexican intellectual tradition, the
> impressive Mexican contributions to the arts, sciences and human
> welfare, that you could point us to. Don't worry, we'll wait.
No need to wait, just hie thyself off to the nearest public library and ask
the nice lady there to pull out all the books written by Mexican nationals.
When you quickly grow tired of reading, slip over to the movie theater and
watch "Lalo", a biography of a famous Mexican female artist whose lover was
Diego Rivera, a world-reknowned muralist and painter.
Mexican surgeons were doing eye and brain surgery when the english were
painting themselves blue and living in caves. They invented their calendar
because of their knowledge of astronomy and mathematics.
Shall I go on, or has your peter shrivelled enough?
> >
> >You're a racist bigot, and you've just pissed down your own leg.
> >
> Are you asserting that Mexicans are a race, as distinct from, say,
> Guatamalans?
Yes. The modern meaning of 'race' is quite different from the one you grew
up with. Look it up and end your confusion.
> As for me, the newcomers to the area where I live that I
> dislike most are mostly of the same race I am.
Californicators are universally despised.
> Thank you for pointing
> out that piss runs uphill.
At least you're consistent in your wrongitude. Sewage DOESN'T run up hill,
and payday's every friday - there, you're a plumber now.
Alan Moore
wrote:
<snip>
>I wonder how you'd feel if you found that Mexico's literacy rate is about
>the same as ours?
I'd feel that some long needed research had been done. Nobody has
attempted to make similar, large scale measurements of literacy in
both countries. The best information concerning the US comes from the
International Adult Literacy Survey, which compared literacy in
several industrialized countries, increasing numbers of countries with
passing time. Mexico has yet to be included. Mexico, however, has a
higher rate of illiteracy (according to UNESCO figures) than some
other Latin American countries, so it's easy to see why they have not
been included in the IALS. Actually, if I found that Mexico's literacy
rate is about he same as that of the US, I would probably think I
needed to re-read whatever it was I had read.
>
> Perhaps you have some other
>> facts, like the well-developed Mexican intellectual tradition, the
>> impressive Mexican contributions to the arts, sciences and human
>> welfare, that you could point us to. Don't worry, we'll wait.
>
>No need to wait, just hie thyself off to the nearest public library and ask
>the nice lady there to pull out all the books written by Mexican nationals.
Hmm. Last time I looked through the Spanish language collections at my
local library, I had a hard time identifying the specifically Mexican
authors from other Spanish language authors. A surprising number of
the books in the collection were translations of authors who
originally wrote in English, however. A much higher fraction of the
total, than the books in English translated from Spanish...
>When you quickly grow tired of reading, slip over to the movie theater and
>watch "Lalo", a biography of a famous Mexican female artist whose lover was
>Diego Rivera, a world-reknowned muralist and painter.
I seldom tire of reading. In addition to my native English and German
(I was raised bilingual) I read Bulgarian and Arabic fairly well. Not
far from me, we have a movie theater that shows lots of Mexican films,
being in the middle of a long established Spanish speaking community,
and I've seen some examples of Diego Rivera's work. It might be
interesting to compare the number of his murals in the US with the
number in Mexico...
>
>Mexican surgeons were doing eye and brain surgery when the english were
>painting themselves blue and living in caves.
Correction. Those were not Mexicans.
>They invented their calendar
>because of their knowledge of astronomy and mathematics.
Acutally, no one knows why they developed the calendar they did. The
inquision ordered that all the documents they could lay their hands on
be destroyed. There now exist only a couple of Mayan Codices, and the
last time I checked, there were still some questions open about which
set of eclipses served as the start point for their calendar. Even so,
their mathematics was far behind what was in use in the mediterranean
region, the middle east, south Asia and China at the same period.
>
>Shall I go on, or has your peter shrivelled enough?
>
As long as you're enjoying it, I'm happy to continue.
>
>> >
>> >You're a racist bigot, and you've just pissed down your own leg.
>> >
>> Are you asserting that Mexicans are a race, as distinct from, say,
>> Guatamalans?
>
>Yes. The modern meaning of 'race' is quite different from the one you grew
>up with. Look it up and end your confusion.
Hmm. My dictionary doesn't seem to have such a definition as you seem
to imply. Maybe you'd better quote me yours.
>
>> As for me, the newcomers to the area where I live that I
>> dislike most are mostly of the same race I am.
>
>Californicators are universally despised.
>
I know. People come to live in what seems to them like paradise, and
tell us we're doing everything wrong. Still, they keep on coming. And
their kids usually grow up Californian.
Al Moore
John
These liberals think Canadian is a race. AZ liberals are uneducated
formally (public School) and attempt to learn vicariously from each
other while in a vacuum. Who would believe a poll of Mexican illegals?
Does anyone think they would tell you the truth? If you ask them, they
would tell you that all Mexican men have pelotas the size of 3 lbs.
weights on an 8 foot cookoo clock, and Mexican women are anorexic.
You are never supposed to mention Mexico's lack of rocket scientists.
They are making great strides in the aviation industry by trying to have
Aeromexico landings equal their takeoffs. They have contributed to the
arts by introducing oil paintings of Elvis and also bullfighters on blue
velvet, many of which hang on the sides of vans at intersections.
Leaving dirty diapers in a food store parking lot is a form of art. They
have contributed to human welfare by having insurance companies require
high uninsured motorist premiums. That protects drivers who are run into
by uninsured Mexicans.
phxbrd
"John" <jo...@theboys.ro> wrote in message
news:3E17DFE4...@theboys.ro...
OK, we seem to have collected another clutch of ignorant peasants deserving
of a medium-force bitch slapping. I never weary of adding my widow's mite
to their education so sadly lacking:
Main Entry: 3race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date: 1580
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a
class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or
characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also
: a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED
c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by
descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength
You're welcome.
John
You never should have bought a dictionary at the Jane Fonda Forum
There are three races recognized by science. Caucasoid, Negroid, and
Mongoloid. The term "race" has acquired so many unscientific conotations
that in this sense it is often replaced in scientific usage by "ethnic
stock" or "grouping". The problem being, so many people went to public
school, or are from California, that the word "race" is misused to the
point no one knows what the hell they're talking about. Somewhat like
confusing the words "gender" and "sex".
All over CA the illegals and others un around in T shirts pronted Viva
la Raza, and don't actually know what race they are. Maybe they are over
educated.