How Immigration harms many American Citizen workers
gringogirl
Shooting the breeze
> http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amerworkers.html
Shit analysis.
American workers have no more "right" not to have to
compete with immigrants than do American stockholders
not to have to compete with foreign manufacturers. You
want more money, get your ass out there and work hard
and earn it. I want cheap stuff: cheaper (imported)
cars and TVs, cheaper food. You do not have a "right"
to make me pay more for the things I want to consume
just because you don't want to get your LAZY FAT ass
out of bed and go hustle. You don't want to compete
with low-wage immigrant labor? Then stop your
gang-bangin' and drug abuse, get your FUCKING ASS to
school, and make something of yourself. That is *your*
responsibility, not mine.
Cheap food, cheap cars and TVs: I want them and I'm
going to *have* them. If you're too lazy and
unmotivated to take control of your own destiny, then
fuck you - you deserve a shitty life.
sleeper
news:IcIsg.7134$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Cheap food, cheap cars and TVs: I want them and I'm
> going to *have* them.
god damn, you make me proud to be american.
listener-powered and commercial-free.
Shooting the breeze
> Shooting the breeze <wi...@cytie.com> waxed rhapsodic in
> news:IcIsg.7134$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>
>>Cheap food, cheap cars and TVs: I want them and I'm
>>going to *have* them.
>
>
> god damn, you make me proud to be american.
Hooray!
I guess you must not like the idea of people telling
you whom you can buy from and whom you can't buy from
any more than me, huh? Damned glad to know ya!
sleeper
can i borrow five bucks?
Robert not Roberto
"Shooting the breeze" <wi...@cytie.com> wrote in message
news:IcIsg.7134$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> gringogirl wrote:
>
>> http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amerworkers.html
>
> Shit analysis.
>
> American workers have no more "right" not to have to compete with
> immigrants than do American stockholders not to have to compete with
> foreign manufacturers.
As long as the immigrants are here legally, that is true. Immigrants who
are here illegally should be deported or jailed.
Jerry Okamura
"gringogirl" <sumar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152599453....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amerworkers.html
>
Reasoned Insanity
"Robert not Roberto" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:s4Qsg.5046$oa1....@news02.roc.ny...
I was thinking they should be shot. That would keep them from coming back as
well as make others think twice about coming here in the first place.
Oliver Costich
<wi...@cytie.com> wrote:
>gringogirl wrote:
>
>> http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/amerworkers.html
>
>Shit analysis.
George Borjas is one of the foremeost labor economists in the world.
Who the fuck are you? Be specific about what's wrong with his
analysis. The article was about immigrants not outsourcing.
>
>American workers have no more "right" not to have to
>compete with immigrants than do American stockholders
>not to have to compete with foreign manufacturers. You
>want more money, get your ass out there and work hard
>and earn it. I want cheap stuff: cheaper (imported)
>cars and TVs, cheaper food. You do not have a "right"
>to make me pay more for the things I want to consume
>just because you don't want to get your LAZY FAT ass
>out of bed and go hustle. You don't want to compete
>with low-wage immigrant labor? Then stop your
>gang-bangin' and drug abuse, get your FUCKING ASS to
>school, and make something of yourself. That is *your*
>responsibility, not mine.
But employers have the right to make you pay more taxes to subsidize
the social costs of immigrants?
>
>Cheap food, cheap cars and TVs: I want them and I'm
>going to *have* them. If you're too lazy and
>unmotivated to take control of your own destiny, then
>fuck you - you deserve a shitty life.
The myth that things are cheap has been debunked too many times to
even respond to your drivel.
Oliver Costich
That's a subterfuge. This issue isn't legal vs illegal. A universal
amnesty would make everyone legal but not solve the problem, which is
cheaper labor undercutting wages.
Oliver Costich
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
with cheap laborers.
Jerry Okamura
"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:74nfb21vllmsjhuc5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
>
> At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
> with cheap laborers.
>
Oliver Costich
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:74nfb21vllmsjhuc5...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
>>
>> At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
>> with cheap laborers.
>>
>And jobs that these companies would have given to workers in the US?
>
How do you know they would have given the jobs to Americans? If they
cost rises above what they can pay and still be profitable, they can
either go overseas or go out of business. Either way the US jobs are
lost, but by not importing cheap labor we avoid the social costs
attached to it. So while neither importing cheap labor or outsourcing
is good, one is better than the other.
Jerry Okamura
Which is better than the other.
Leif Erikson
> "Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:7uh3c2129ratuqq4s...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:21:07 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>><okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:74nfb21vllmsjhuc5...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>><okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
>>>>
>>>>At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
>>>>with cheap laborers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And jobs that these companies would have given to workers in the US?
>>>
>>
>>
>>How do you know they would have given the jobs to Americans? If they
>>cost rises above what they can pay and still be profitable, they can
>>either go overseas or go out of business. Either way the US jobs are
>>lost, but by not importing cheap labor we avoid the social costs
>>attached to it. So while neither importing cheap labor or outsourcing
>>is good, one is better than the other.
>
>
> Which is better than the other.
If you're a racist shitbag like Oliver, the
out-sourcing is "better".
By the way, his supposed "analysis" about the "social
costs" of immigration is complete and utter horseshit.
Jerry Okamura
"Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:JRRwg.8851$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
This is real simple to understand. There are foriegn owned companies, who
do business in the United States. They compete directly with US companies,
to sell their products, The US companies either are competitive or they are
not. If they are not competitive, these foriegn companies will take over
that business sector. "If"\" those foriegn companies take over a busienss
sector, there will be no "domestic" companies who will be producing those
products and "NO" U.S. workers producing these products. If the U.S.
companies can compete by outsourcing part of what they do, then they have a
better chance of staying alive. We used to have the biggest steel producers
in the world...the foriegn companies had them for lunch, and what use to be
a very large business sector is a shell of what it use to be. The US had a
thriving television manufacturing industry....are they any television
manufacturing still producing televisions in the US today? The list is
endless.....
Oliver Costich
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:7uh3c2129ratuqq4s...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:21:07 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:74nfb21vllmsjhuc5...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
>>>>
>>>> At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
>>>> with cheap laborers.
>>>>
>>>And jobs that these companies would have given to workers in the US?
>>>
>>
>>
>> How do you know they would have given the jobs to Americans? If they
>> cost rises above what they can pay and still be profitable, they can
>> either go overseas or go out of business. Either way the US jobs are
>> lost, but by not importing cheap labor we avoid the social costs
>> attached to it. So while neither importing cheap labor or outsourcing
>> is good, one is better than the other.
>
>Which is better than the other.
>
Not a genius at economics I see. Importing cheap labor, we loose
American jobs and put Americans on welfare AND pay the social costs of
the illegals and their families. Outsourcing has the same effect
EXCEPT we are off the hook for the social costs, which are tens of
billions of dollars.
Can you really be this stupid?
Oliver Costich
Show me your analysis. And thanks for playing the race card but no
sale. My wife, Blanca Perez, thinks you're an asshole.
Leif Erikson
Yours is horseshit - complete and utter horseshit.
> And thanks for playing the race card
The vehement opposition to so-called "illegal immigrants" is almost
wholly race-based.
Oliver Costich
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
No, most TVs are made over the border in maquilas and then imported
here, where they are cheaper than in Mexico. And if it's so simple to
understand, why don't you get it? If companies import cheap illegal
workers so they can stay alive in the US, how does that help American
workers,besides depressing the wages of those still working? Losing
American jobs by outsourcing costs no more jobs than losing American
jobs to cheap imported labor, but in the latter case we avoid the
social costs.
>>
>> By the way, his supposed "analysis" about the "social costs" of
>> immigration is complete and utter horseshit.
>
Imyself and others have posted social cost references here ad nauseum.
Show me you analysis of the social costs.
Leif Erikson
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:53:28 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:7uh3c2129ratuqq4s...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:21:07 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> >> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:74nfb21vllmsjhuc5...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> >>>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
> >>>>
> >>>> At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
> >>>> with cheap laborers.
> >>>>
> >>>And jobs that these companies would have given to workers in the US?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> How do you know they would have given the jobs to Americans? If they
> >> cost rises above what they can pay and still be profitable, they can
> >> either go overseas or go out of business. Either way the US jobs are
> >> lost, but by not importing cheap labor we avoid the social costs
> >> attached to it. So while neither importing cheap labor or outsourcing
> >> is good, one is better than the other.
> >
> >Which is better than the other.
> >
>
> Not a genius at economics I see.
You're going to reveal your own utter ignorance on economics in the
next sentence, shitbag (not to mention your inability to spell).
> Importing cheap labor, we loose
LOSE, you fuckwit; not "loose".
> American jobs
Right there - ignorance. We do not lose, or "loose", American jobs.
That's the Lump of Labor fallacy. Look it up.
> and put Americans on welfare
False.
> AND pay the social costs
No, shithead. There are some economic costs, but on net, the
immigrants are a plus for the economy. The problem is in the
distribution of costs and benefits. That the immigrants are a net
benefit for the economy is not in dispute by economists.
Before you start, asshole, you can leave out any of your merely fiscal
sob story. Don't even bother. The economic impact of immigrants is
not limited to government receipts and expenditures.
> of the illegals and their families. Outsourcing has the same effect
> EXCEPT we are off the hook for the social costs, which are tens of
> billions of dollars.
>
> Can you really be this stupid?
You have no room to call anyone stupid. You eat, breathe and sleep
stupid.
T Jr Hardman
I should point out that this is "Rudy Canoza". He's mostly known for
making absolutist statements and failing to back them up. He inevitably,
and quickly, degenerates into a case of "yes you are, no I'm not, yes
you are, no I'm not". He's purely a waste of time, for the most part,
but his few semi-compelling arguments must be refuted, and of course all
blatant trolling must be remarked as such, and thereafter be dismissed.
Rudy, we are LAUGHING AT YOUR TRANSPARENT FOOLISHNESS.
--
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool
than to speak foolishness and remove all doubt.
--Aesop
The more unnatural anything is, the more it is
capable of becoming the object of dismal admiration.
--Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason"
Leif Erikson
Hey, Tiny Lump of Ferret Shit - where ya been, kid?
> Rudy, we are LAUGHING
You're not, Tiny Lump. You are enraged; you're not laughing. You're
so enraged that I'm not blindly and stupidly going along with the
bigoted xenophobia that you're close to mutilating yourself.
I should have recognized it was you when you splutteringly posted that
bullshit about Maryland birth rates, you stupid lump of weasel shit.
You still think that a 2.5% birth rate is "breeding like rabbits"?
Lump, you *always* were just something to toy with, and nothing has
changed.
Alphonso M'buto Chiang
notg...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> And thanks for playing the race card
>
>The vehement opposition to so-called "illegal immigrants" is almost
>wholly race-based.
>
What do you mean by "so called "illegal immigrants""?
Alphonso M'buto Chiang
notg...@yahoo.com says...
>No, shithead. There are some economic costs, but on net, the
>immigrants are a plus for the economy. The problem is in the
>distribution of costs and benefits. That the immigrants are a net
>benefit for the economy is not in dispute by economists.
>
You mean, the wealthier Americans get the benefits, and the middle to lower
classes get screwed, right?
Leif Erikson
No, cunt. I mean that all Americans get the benefits,
but people in the states where undocumented immigrants
are concentrated bear a disproportionate share of the
costs.
I hope that helps to improve your understanding, which
to this point is clearly shit.
Leif Erikson
What the fuck do you think I mean by it, cunthair? I
mean it's a bullshit nonsense term. "Illegal" is an
adjective, and adjectives modify nouns. The immigrant
- a person - cannot be "illegal". His act in crossing
the border and his residence status are illegal; he,
himself, is not.
T Jr Hardman
*yawn*
> I should have recognized it was you when you splutteringly posted that
> bullshit about Maryland birth rates, you stupid lump of weasel shit.
> You still think that a 2.5% birth rate is "breeding like rabbits"?
> Lump, you *always* were just something to toy with, and nothing has
> changed.
Well, 2.5% isn't exactly breeding like rabbits, IIRC rabbits have
_litters_. Still, considering that the US has the fastest-growing
population of any of the developed nations, it should concern all of us
when one group has a birthrate nearly three times that of the longtime
resident populations.
You're foaming, BTW. And you'll foam worse when you ONCE AGAIN get
nominated for UseNet Kook of the Week, Month, or Year.
--
Leif Erikson
No, Lump. You're not yawning, either. Not yawning,
not laughing. You're PISSED OFF that I blow your
nonsense away.
>
>> I should have recognized it was you when you splutteringly posted that
>> bullshit about Maryland birth rates, you stupid lump of weasel shit.
>> You still think that a 2.5% birth rate is "breeding like rabbits"?
>> Lump, you *always* were just something to toy with, and nothing has
>> changed.
>
>
> Well, 2.5% isn't exactly breeding like rabbits,
Right, asshole.
> IIRC rabbits have
> _litters_. Still, considering that the US has the fastest-growing
> population of any of the developed nations, it should concern all of us
> when one group has a birthrate nearly three times that of the longtime
> resident populations.
Why? Oh, right - because you're a bigot, and you
stupidly think there's some necessity of preserving the
northern European legacy in the U.S. *Why*, exactly?
T Jr Hardman
ROFL!
"What, you are think you're a Jedi? Those mind tricks won't work on me,
my species is immune to it."
Honestly, you crack me up. ;)
>>> I should have recognized it was you when you splutteringly posted that
>>> bullshit about Maryland birth rates, you stupid lump of weasel shit.
>>> You still think that a 2.5% birth rate is "breeding like rabbits"?
>>> Lump, you *always* were just something to toy with, and nothing has
>>> changed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, 2.5% isn't exactly breeding like rabbits,
>
>
> Right, asshole.
>
>
>> IIRC rabbits have _litters_. Still, considering that the US has the
>> fastest-growing population of any of the developed nations, it should
>> concern all of us when one group has a birthrate nearly three times
>> that of the longtime resident populations.
>
>
> Why? Oh, right - because you're a bigot, and you stupidly think there's
> some necessity of preserving the northern European legacy in the U.S.
> *Why*, exactly?
Actually, I feel like preserving the few remnants of the original
ecology and environment in North America and in the rest of the world as
well. Don't forget that I'm one of those tree-hugging pagans, and as the
US and its exploding population growth is one of the major causes of
acceleration of Global Warming, I am honor bound to try to reduce that
population explosion. Removing people who are illegally present in any
case, and who have a massive legal incentive to reproduce as quickly as
possible once they arrive, that only follows logically.
Please try to argue that it's logical to fail to remove the
illegally-present people whose primary imperative is to rapidly give
birth to have an anchor in the new nation. You know, in the context of
overpopulation leading to global warming.
Nit wit!
--
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool
than to speak foolishness and remove all doubt.
--Aesop
Ramon F Herrera
The power of competition they call it. It is the economic backbone of
this or any developed country.
-Ramon
Leif Erikson
You're not laughing, Tiny Lump.
> >>> I should have recognized it was you when you splutteringly posted that
> >>> bullshit about Maryland birth rates, you stupid lump of weasel shit.
> >>> You still think that a 2.5% birth rate is "breeding like rabbits"?
> >>> Lump, you *always* were just something to toy with, and nothing has
> >>> changed.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, 2.5% isn't exactly breeding like rabbits,
> >
> >
> > Right, asshole.
> >
> >
> >> IIRC rabbits have _litters_. Still, considering that the US has the
> >> fastest-growing population of any of the developed nations, it should
> >> concern all of us when one group has a birthrate nearly three times
> >> that of the longtime resident populations.
> >
> >
> > Why? Oh, right - because you're a bigot, and you stupidly think there's
> > some necessity of preserving the northern European legacy in the U.S.
> > *Why*, exactly?
>
> Actually, I feel like preserving the few remnants of the original
> ecology and environment in North America
Transparent bullshit. It was bullshit with the Sierra Club, it's even
more blatantly bullshit coming from you.
lora...@cs.com
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Hey, Tiny Lump - why'd you switch your nym?
>
>
> Tiny Lump of Ferret SHIT whined:
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> > > Tiny Lump of Ferret SHIT whined:
> > Actually, I feel like preserving the few remnants of the original
> > ecology and environment in North America
>
> Transparent bullshit. It was bullshit with the Sierra Club, it's even
> more blatantly bullshit coming from you.
The point of discussion has been lost with all of the responses..
Just know this:
The current rate and manner of immigration that the US is being
subjected to does harm US citizens, the environment, and american
society.
Every US citizen gains by supporting a secure and sovereien US border.
Every US citizens that does not do so, by definition is a traitor.
Alphonso M'buto Chiang
pi...@thedismalscience.net says...
Hey, your failure to clearly express your own thoughts is your problem, not
mine. Name calling can only diminish you.
Leif Erikson
> In article <Dvhxg.4540$157....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> pi...@thedismalscience.net says...
> >
> >Alphonso M'buto Chiang wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1153775078.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> notg...@yahoo.com says...
> >>
> >>
> >>>No, shithead. There are some economic costs, but on net, the
> >>>immigrants are a plus for the economy. The problem is in the
> >>>distribution of costs and benefits. That the immigrants are a net
> >>>benefit for the economy is not in dispute by economists.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You mean, the wealthier Americans get the benefits, and the middle to lower
> >> classes get screwed, right?
> >
> >No, cunt. I mean that all Americans get the benefits,
> >but people in the states where undocumented immigrants
> >are concentrated bear a disproportionate share of the
> >costs.
> >
> >I hope that helps to improve your understanding, which
> >to this point is clearly shit.
>
> Hey, your failure to clearly express your own thoughts is your problem,
I express my thoughts perfectly clearly. You, on the other hand, have
reading comprehension problems. For example, somehow you got something
out of what I posted that I neither wrote nor implied nor even hinted
at: "You mean, the wealthier Americans get the benefits, and the
middle to lower classes get screwed, right?"
Good luck in your remedial reading course.
Alphonso M'buto Chiang
notgen...@yahoo.com says...
You wrote "The problem is in the distribution of costs and benefits."
I asked if the distribution was across income groups, and you replied that the
distribution was geographic; which you neither wrote, implied, or hinted. Why
so touchy? Simple clarification is all that is needed. Y tambien, puedo leer
libros del nivel de universidad en ingles y espanol.
Leif Erikson
That's a true statement.
> I asked if the distribution was across income groups,
...rather snarkily...
> and you replied that the
> distribution was geographic; which you neither wrote, implied, or hinted. Why
> so touchy? Simple clarification is all that is needed. Y tambien, puedo leer
> libros del nivel de universidad en ingles y espanol.
Sorry - I don't speak Spanish. Fluent French, and passable German.
And excellent, nuanced English, of course.
Jafo
>Hey, Tiny Lump - why'd you switch your nym?
This, from the former Rudy Canoza?
--
Jafo
T Jr Hardman
"Rudy Canoza", presently posting as "Leif Erikson", is perfectly well
aware of this. However, he is an asshole and glories in his failures and
excesses. That's why I like to lead him down the rhetorical garden path
into the places where he has no answers to give when I tell him a
killing joke. Your amusement as he thrashes around is my source of
gratification; your enlightenment as you increase your awareness of what
sort of idiot seems to be in charge of immigration policy, as we
approach the elections, is my primary reward.
Consider me a Poseur Exposer.
Consider him unmasked, yet again, as a Usenet Kook.
T Jr Hardman
His failure to understand and agree with your Kookery is not equivalent
to his being unable to read.
It's just that your message makes no sense.
T Jr Hardman
Oy gevalt, a leftover spy from the cold war. Just what the world needs.
No wonder you oppose any crackdowns on illegal aliens; you ARE one. One
of the worst.
The Pervert
<lora...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1153864773....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> The point of discussion has been lost with all of the responses..
>
> Just know this:
> The current rate and manner of immigration that the US is being
> subjected to does harm US citizens, the environment, and american
> society.
>
> Every US citizen gains by supporting a secure and sovereien US border.
No argument so far.
> Every US citizens that does not do so, by definition is a traitor.
Where did you fabricate that definition?
T Jr Hardman
That's hilarious.
The Sierra Club doesn't stand against runaway immigration --legal but
mostly otherwise-- as a driver of population growth and wilderness
destruction.
I do.
The Sierra Club, thus, along with you, is an idiot.
Jerry Okamura
You responded to only one small part of my point. But here is a list of
companies that do and use to make TV's. Are you going to argue that "all"
of the remaining TV manufacturers that sell their sets in the US are all
located in the borders of Mexico?
http://www.tvhistory.tv/1960-2000-TVManufacturers.htm
>
>>>
>>> By the way, his supposed "analysis" about the "social costs" of
>>> immigration is complete and utter horseshit.
>>
>
> Imyself and others have posted social cost references here ad nauseum.
> Show me you analysis of the social costs.
I did not comment on the analysis of the social cost.
Jerry Okamura
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:53:28 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:7uh3c2129ratuqq4s...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:21:07 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:74nfb21vllmsjhuc5...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
>>>>>
>>>>> At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
>>>>> with cheap laborers.
>>>>>
>>>>And jobs that these companies would have given to workers in the US?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know they would have given the jobs to Americans? If they
>>> cost rises above what they can pay and still be profitable, they can
>>> either go overseas or go out of business. Either way the US jobs are
>>> lost, but by not importing cheap labor we avoid the social costs
>>> attached to it. So while neither importing cheap labor or outsourcing
>>> is good, one is better than the other.
>>
>>Which is better than the other.
>>
>
> American jobs and put Americans on welfare AND pay the social costs of
> the illegals and their families. Outsourcing has the same effect
> EXCEPT we are off the hook for the social costs, which are tens of
> billions of dollars.
Those American jobs that are lost, are to the benefit of the many other
americans who benefit from the lower cost of labor...
T Jr Hardman
Perhaps not.
As more Americans lose their jobs, they stop paying taxes. Also, they
stop buying things.
Mostly it's the rich who benefit from the lower cost of labor,
middle-class and working-class people most often do the work themselves,
which the rich pay illegal aliens to do.
Eventually the unemployed former middle-class and working-class
Americans wind up competing for the worst jobs with illegal aliens. The
rich benefit but everyone else gets screwed. In the end, the American
non-elites are begging to do the work of illegal aliens, wages continue
to spiral downwards, and whatever they're making, they can't afford to
pay taxes, and thus they start working off-the-books like the illegals,
and pay no taxes and can afford to buy almost nothing. The government
starts to go broke, all of the protections like OSHA or minimum wage are
inaccessible to the Americans working off of the books, and the entire
class of the non-elites are reduced to abject poverty, and eventually
servitude or serfdom.
If you wish that on the average American, you are clearly the enemy of
all of those people. If you voluntarily elect to be the enemy of all of
the American non-elite vast majority, if they should discover this and
drag you out of your house and rip you to bits, I won't shed any tears
other than that it has come to this, that the American have decided that
the law can't possibly benefit them, unless it's the law of the jungle
and the law of whoever strikes first, strikes best.
Why do you hate the average American so much, "Jerry Okamura"?
Leif Erikson
There's a labor shortage, you economics-illiterate blue
crab. That's why there's a giant sucking sound of
America sucking in Latin American labor. Unemployment
is at nearly historic lows. And don't give me that
tired old left-wing (!!!) rant about unemployment
statistics understating the real rate of unemployment;
that's just bullshit. The definition of unemployment
hasn't changed. If some young high school drop-out
decides to leave the labor force to return to school
because he didn't like the low-wage jobs he found
available, that's a *good* thing.
It's really astonishing listening to you Latino-hating
bigots pretending to feel sorry for badly educated,
low-skilled bottom-enders. The spur of increased
competition for low-skill jobs may be just what these
clods need to begin to take responsibility for their
welfare, and it may be just what some marginal high
school students need to make them get serious about school.
You just don't know what you're talking about, and you
never will.
Jerry Okamura
"T Jr Hardman" <blockspam...@thomashardman.com> wrote in message
news:44C97E36...@thomashardman.com...
The only way that makes sense is if those who lose their jobs are not able
to get another job, and are permanently unemployed.
>
> Mostly it's the rich who benefit from the lower cost of labor,
> middle-class and working-class people most often do the work themselves,
> which the rich pay illegal aliens to do.
No, the biggest beneficiaries are the poor, who are able to buy products
which would be beyond their reach, if they cost more....
>
> Eventually the unemployed former middle-class and working-class Americans
> wind up competing for the worst jobs with illegal aliens. The rich benefit
> but everyone else gets screwed. In the end, the American non-elites are
> begging to do the work of illegal aliens, wages continue to spiral
> downwards, and whatever they're making, they can't afford to pay taxes,
> and thus they start working off-the-books like the illegals, and pay no
> taxes and can afford to buy almost nothing. The government starts to go
> broke, all of the protections like OSHA or minimum wage are inaccessible
> to the Americans working off of the books, and the entire class of the
> non-elites are reduced to abject poverty, and eventually servitude or
> serfdom.
What kind of jobs do the illegal aliens take? As for the minimum wage, that
is another one of those government ponzi schemes. It doesn't work in the
long run.
>
> If you wish that on the average American, you are clearly the enemy of all
> of those people. If you voluntarily elect to be the enemy of all of the
> American non-elite vast majority, if they should discover this and drag
> you out of your house and rip you to bits, I won't shed any tears other
> than that it has come to this, that the American have decided that the law
> can't possibly benefit them, unless it's the law of the jungle and the law
> of whoever strikes first, strikes best.
>
> Why do you hate the average American so much, "Jerry Okamura"?
>
Average Americans can take care of themselves a whole lot better, if they
would do one simple thing....take advantage of the education that is
provided to them
Oliver Costich
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
All? Of course not, but more TVs are at least assembled in Mexico than
everywhere else. And what does any of this have to do with the effects
of imported cheap labor on Americans?
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>Oliver Costich wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:28:09 GMT, Leif Erikson
>> <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:7uh3c2129ratuqq4s...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:21:07 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> >>><okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:74nfb21vllmsjhuc5...@4ax.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> >>>>><okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
>> >>>>>with cheap laborers.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>And jobs that these companies would have given to workers in the US?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>How do you know they would have given the jobs to Americans? If they
>> >>>cost rises above what they can pay and still be profitable, they can
>> >>>either go overseas or go out of business. Either way the US jobs are
>> >>>lost, but by not importing cheap labor we avoid the social costs
>> >>>attached to it. So while neither importing cheap labor or outsourcing
>> >>>is good, one is better than the other.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Which is better than the other.
>> >
>> >If you're a racist shitbag like Oliver, the
>> >out-sourcing is "better".
>> >
>> >By the way, his supposed "analysis" about the "social
>> >costs" of immigration is complete and utter horseshit.
>>
>> Show me your analysis.
>
>Yours is horseshit - complete and utter horseshit.
It's not mine. It comes from labor and agricultural economists.
Where's your information come from? Out of your ass I suspect,
especially when your response to my asking for it is a simple rant
about horseshit. You have any data or analysis or not? I suspect not.
>
>
>> And thanks for playing the race card
>
>The vehement opposition to so-called "illegal immigrants" is almost
>wholly race-based.
Mine is based on economic and environmental concerns. What's your
position based on? Or are you too stupid to articulate it?
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>Oliver Costich wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:53:28 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:7uh3c2129ratuqq4s...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:21:07 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> >> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>>news:74nfb21vllmsjhuc5...@4ax.com...
>> >>>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>> >>>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
>> >>>> with cheap laborers.
>> >>>>
>> >>>And jobs that these companies would have given to workers in the US?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How do you know they would have given the jobs to Americans? If they
>> >> cost rises above what they can pay and still be profitable, they can
>> >> either go overseas or go out of business. Either way the US jobs are
>> >> lost, but by not importing cheap labor we avoid the social costs
>> >> attached to it. So while neither importing cheap labor or outsourcing
>> >> is good, one is better than the other.
>> >
>> >Which is better than the other.
>> >
>>
>> Not a genius at economics I see.
>
>You're going to reveal your own utter ignorance on economics in the
>next sentence, shitbag (not to mention your inability to spell).
>
>
>> Importing cheap labor, we loose
>
>LOSE, you fuckwit; not "loose".
Nitpicking spelling and typos is the last argument of a person with
out a logical position. Fits right in with your rampant playing of
the race card and your inability to provide any evidence to support
your position.
>
>
>> American jobs
>
>Right there - ignorance. We do not lose, or "loose", American jobs.
>That's the Lump of Labor fallacy. Look it up.
I know what it is and it's not applicable in this case unless you're
feeble minded.
>
>
>> and put Americans on welfare
>
>False.
Gee, I'm convinced. You have anything to back up your bullshit.
>
>
>> AND pay the social costs
>
>No, shithead. There are some economic costs, but on net, the
>immigrants are a plus for the economy. The problem is in the
>distribution of costs and benefits. That the immigrants are a net
>benefit for the economy is not in dispute by economists.
Yes, it is. For example, see Borjas from Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government and a foremost labor economist. Many studies show a
negative impact on wages and family incomes. Those studies that show
any economic benefit from illegal immigration don't dispute that it is
in fact a redistribution of wealth to the richest Americans.
>
>Before you start, asshole, you can leave out any of your merely fiscal
>sob story. Don't even bother. The economic impact of immigrants is
>not limited to government receipts and expenditures.
Who siad it was? Amd I have no fiscal sob story. I have no debt, own
an upscale house and late model cars, and have an income twice that
average family's even though I am retired and have been for 10 years.
>
>> of the illegals and their families. Outsourcing has the same effect
>> EXCEPT we are off the hook for the social costs, which are tens of
>> billions of dollars.
>>
>> Can you really be this stupid?
>
>You have no room to call anyone stupid. You eat, breathe and sleep
>stupid.
And all you've got is insult. No references, data or analysis.
Oliver Costich
<blockspam...@thomashardman.com> wrote:
>>>American jobs
>>
>>
>> Right there - ignorance. We do not lose, or "loose", American jobs.
>> That's the Lump of Labor fallacy. Look it up.
>>
>>
>>
>>>and put Americans on welfare
>>
>>
>> False.
>>
>>
>>
>>>AND pay the social costs
>>
>>
>> No, shithead. There are some economic costs, but on net, the
>> immigrants are a plus for the economy. The problem is in the
>> distribution of costs and benefits. That the immigrants are a net
>> benefit for the economy is not in dispute by economists.
>>
>> Before you start, asshole, you can leave out any of your merely fiscal
>> sob story. Don't even bother. The economic impact of immigrants is
>> not limited to government receipts and expenditures.
>>
>>
>>>of the illegals and their families. Outsourcing has the same effect
>>>EXCEPT we are off the hook for the social costs, which are tens of
>>>billions of dollars.
>>>
>>>Can you really be this stupid?
>>
>>
>> You have no room to call anyone stupid. You eat, breathe and sleep
>> stupid.
>
>I should point out that this is "Rudy Canoza". He's mostly known for
>making absolutist statements and failing to back them up. He inevitably,
>and quickly, degenerates into a case of "yes you are, no I'm not, yes
>you are, no I'm not". He's purely a waste of time, for the most part,
>but his few semi-compelling arguments must be refuted, and of course all
>blatant trolling must be remarked as such, and thereafter be dismissed.
>
>Rudy, we are LAUGHING AT YOUR TRANSPARENT FOOLISHNESS.
Oliver Costich
wrote:
>Hey, Tiny Lump - why'd you switch your nym?
Do you have anything besides "bullshit" and the like? How about some
data or analysis? Otherwise you come off a blithering moronic asshole
Oliver Costich
M'buto Chiang) wrote:
>In article <1153775078.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>notg...@yahoo.com says...
>
>>No, shithead. There are some economic costs, but on net, the
>>immigrants are a plus for the economy. The problem is in the
>>distribution of costs and benefits. That the immigrants are a net
>>benefit for the economy is not in dispute by economists.
>>
>You mean, the wealthier Americans get the benefits, and the middle to lower
>classes get screwed, right?
>
>
>
Recent reports on the growth rate of incomes by earnings level
supports this. The Income increase was 12.5% for the top 1% of earners
and less than 3% for the other 99%.
Oliver Costich
Clarification is very difficult when you are absolutely wrong.
Oliver Costich
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Where do you get this bullshit? Do you do any research at all, or do
you just pull this crap out of your ass? Your statement is not just
not based on any logical process but contrary to the facts.
>>
>> Can you really be this stupid?
>
Apparently, you can!
Oliver Costich
Unemployment in the lowest quintile of American works, where they have
to compete with the illegals, is 10%. There is no shortage of
Americans with no skills.
>
>It's really astonishing listening to you Latino-hating
>bigots pretending to feel sorry for badly educated,
>low-skilled bottom-enders. The spur of increased
>competition for low-skill jobs may be just what these
>clods need to begin to take responsibility for their
>welfare, and it may be just what some marginal high
>school students need to make them get serious about school.
It's not about Latinos or any other ethnicity/race. It's about the
economics of importing cheaper labor which suppresses wages and costs
jobs.
>
>You just don't know what you're talking about, and you
>never will.
And you have never given any data or analysis to support your overly
simplistic drivel.
Oliver Costich
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Or have to take a much lower paying job where they can no longer make
as many purchases and need welfare to get by. Some will never get
another job. You finally figured it out NOT. Not too good at the
deatils are you? I guess having to consider all the possible imapcts
would be too stressful on the few synaptic connections you have still
functioning.
>>
>> Mostly it's the rich who benefit from the lower cost of labor,
>> middle-class and working-class people most often do the work themselves,
>> which the rich pay illegal aliens to do.
>
>No, the biggest beneficiaries are the poor, who are able to buy products
>which would be beyond their reach, if they cost more....
Your'e a moron. The recent economic data is 100% opposite of your
claim. Bt don't let facts confuse you.
>>
>> Eventually the unemployed former middle-class and working-class Americans
>> wind up competing for the worst jobs with illegal aliens. The rich benefit
>> but everyone else gets screwed. In the end, the American non-elites are
>> begging to do the work of illegal aliens, wages continue to spiral
>> downwards, and whatever they're making, they can't afford to pay taxes,
>> and thus they start working off-the-books like the illegals, and pay no
>> taxes and can afford to buy almost nothing. The government starts to go
>> broke, all of the protections like OSHA or minimum wage are inaccessible
>> to the Americans working off of the books, and the entire class of the
>> non-elites are reduced to abject poverty, and eventually servitude or
>> serfdom.
>
>What kind of jobs do the illegal aliens take? As for the minimum wage, that
>is another one of those government ponzi schemes. It doesn't work in the
>long run.
What about it "doesn't work"? What does that even mean? And how is it
a Ponzi scheme?
>>
>> If you wish that on the average American, you are clearly the enemy of all
>> of those people. If you voluntarily elect to be the enemy of all of the
>> American non-elite vast majority, if they should discover this and drag
>> you out of your house and rip you to bits, I won't shed any tears other
>> than that it has come to this, that the American have decided that the law
>> can't possibly benefit them, unless it's the law of the jungle and the law
>> of whoever strikes first, strikes best.
>>
>> Why do you hate the average American so much, "Jerry Okamura"?
>>
>Average Americans can take care of themselves a whole lot better, if they
>would do one simple thing....take advantage of the education that is
>provided to them
Actually, recent college graduates are finding it much more difficult
too find decent jobs commensurate with their investment in their
education. I guees that information escaped your attention.
>
Alphonso M'buto Chiang
pi...@thedismalscience.net says...
>There's a labor shortage, you economics-illiterate blue
>crab. That's why there's a giant sucking sound of
>America sucking in Latin American labor. Unemployment
>is at nearly historic lows.
>
>It's really astonishing listening to you Latino-hating
>bigots pretending to feel sorry for badly educated,
>low-skilled bottom-enders. The spur of increased
>competition for low-skill jobs may be just what these
>clods need to begin to take responsibility for their
>welfare, and it may be just what some marginal high
>school students need to make them get serious about school.
>
>You just don't know what you're talking about, and you
>never will.
Ok, so if there is a labor shortage for the lower skilled jobs, then obviously
the wages for these workers must be going up.Supply and demand, my friend,
can't fight supply and demand, its the law! ...What? They're not going up?
They're going down?
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060412
"The chart below illustrates the fact that workers in the bottom 20% of the
wage scale suffered a 1.9% decline in real wages between 2004 and 2005. It
also shows that only 24% of those workers were covered by employer-provided
health insurance in 2004."
Leif Erikson
No it doesn't. It couldn't. It's a value judgment not
an analysis.
>>>And thanks for playing the race card
>>
>>The vehement opposition to so-called "illegal immigrants" is almost
>>wholly race-based.
>
>
> Mine is based on economic and environmental concerns.
No, it isn't. You haven't stated any legitimate ones.
Your opposition is based on class and ethnicity.
Leif Erikson
It isn't nitpicking, and his error wasn't a typo. It
was *ignorance* - the kind of ignorance that means
*none* of what he says is worthwhile.
>>>American jobs
>>
>>Right there - ignorance. We do not lose, or "loose", American jobs.
>>That's the Lump of Labor fallacy. Look it up.
>
>
>
> I know what it is and it's not applicable
It's applicable, and I believe you don't know what it
is, ollie.
>>
>>>and put Americans on welfare
>>
>>False.
>
>
> Gee, I'm convinced.
No evidence of it putting Americans on welfare.
>>>AND pay the social costs
>>
>>No, shithead. There are some economic costs, but on net, the
>>immigrants are a plus for the economy. The problem is in the
>>distribution of costs and benefits. That the immigrants are a net
>>benefit for the economy is not in dispute by economists.
>
>
> Yes, it is.
No, it isn't. The value of what undocumented
immigrants produces exceeds the value of what they consume.
> For example, see Borjas
Borjas does not dispute that the undocumented
immigrants produce greater value than they consume.
>>Before you start, asshole, you can leave out any of your merely fiscal
>>sob story. Don't even bother. The economic impact of immigrants is
>>not limited to government receipts and expenditures.
>
>
> Who siad it was? Amd I have no fiscal sob story. I have no debt, own
> an upscale house and late model cars, and have an income twice that
> average family's even though I am retired and have been for 10 years.
You idiot. The fiscal sob story is the one that
garden-variety bigots like you trot out about
undocumented immigrants consuming more government
benefits than they pay for in taxes.
I'm interested in their fiscal impact. I'm interested
in their total economic impact, something much broader
than their fiscal impact. Stick the fiscal sob stories
back up your ass where you got them.
>>>of the illegals and their families. Outsourcing has the same effect
>>>EXCEPT we are off the hook for the social costs, which are tens of
>>>billions of dollars.
>>>
>>>Can you really be this stupid?
>>
>>You have no room to call anyone stupid. You eat, breathe and sleep
>>stupid.
>
>
>
> And all you've got is insult.
Nope. I have economic theory and analysis. The value
of what the undocumented immigrants produce exceeds the
value of what they consume. This is not in dispute.
Leif Erikson
little ollie: the laughably transparent bullshit about
concern for the "environment" just won't fly. Drop it.
Leif Erikson
Unsourced, of course. Lowest quintile of *what*, you
stupid statistics-illiterate fuck?
You stupid fuck: people in the "lowest quintile" (of
something, I guess...) are young people, who *always*
have high unemployment rates relative to others. Count
on lying FUCKING BIGOT ollie to try to lie with statistics.
> There is no shortage of
> Americans with no skills.
Their problem. They have no skills because they're
lazy fucks who don't want to work hard at anything:
jobs, skill acquisition, you name it. They deserve no
sympathy.
>>It's really astonishing listening to you Latino-hating
>>bigots pretending to feel sorry for badly educated,
>>low-skilled bottom-enders. The spur of increased
>>competition for low-skill jobs may be just what these
>>clods need to begin to take responsibility for their
>>welfare, and it may be just what some marginal high
>>school students need to make them get serious about school.
>
>
> It's not about Latinos or any other ethnicity/race.
Yes, it is. It's about hatred of Latinos.
Jafo
>Borjas does not dispute that the undocumented
>immigrants produce greater value than they consume.
LOL! Yeah, like the woman mentioned on TV news the other day;
she and her husband entered this country illegally many years
ago. They have a couple of teenagers, a set of triplets, and
she recently gave birth to quadruplets - American citizens, all,
thanks to an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that
nobody could have forseen in 1869. And one of the triplets
has had three brain operations. She said that she is sooo
happy to be living in the United States.
Save your spin control bullshit for the sort of easy marks
that you live to impress.
--
Jafo
Leif Erikson
> As viewed from alt.california, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>Borjas does not dispute that the undocumented
>>immigrants produce greater value than they consume.
>
>
> LOL! Yeah, like the woman mentioned on TV news the other day;
> she and her husband entered this country illegally many years
> ago. They have a couple of teenagers, a set of triplets, and
> she recently gave birth to quadruplets - American citizens, all,
> thanks to an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that
> nobody could have forseen in 1869. And one of the triplets
> has had three brain operations. She said that she is sooo
> happy to be living in the United States.
I thought you lot decried the use of extraordinary
anecdotes back when the Clintons tried to use them to
push for universal health care? What happened? Why do
you now embrace extraordinary anecdotes as a way of
pushing your agenda?
Oh, yeah, how could I forget? You're massive hypocrites.
hc23hc
Jafo wrote:
> one of the triplets has had three brain operations.
> She said that she is sooo happy to be living in the
> United States.
Don't act so surprised, Jafo-- it's not like you expected her to start
singing W's praises after just *one* brain operation, did you ?
.
.
.
T Jr Hardman
Oliver, this is the Contrarian "Rudy Canoza". It's incapable of
admitting that its defeat is of complete abjection and longstanding.
It likes to make risable unfounded accusations which can't be easily
disproven or perhaps not disproven at all, despite them being clearly
fabrications and lies not worth attempting to deny.
T Jr Hardman
There's nothing laughable nor transparent about my concern for the
environment. It's quite real. And the environment suffers, at least here
in UseNet, because you are a living part of it, rather than nutritious
fertilizer being absorbed by things that deserve to live and grow.]
T Jr Hardman
Of course it is. Cites, please.
T Jr Hardman
Oliver, his spasm of foaming profanity is proof positive that you hit
him and hit him hard.
Please dig up the cites and plaster him with them! Then we can watch him
melt down even worse.
>
>> There is no shortage of
>> Americans with no skills.
>
>
> Their problem. They have no skills because they're lazy fucks who don't
> want to work hard at anything: jobs, skill acquisition, you name it.
> They deserve no sympathy.
>
>
>>> It's really astonishing listening to you Latino-hating bigots
>>> pretending to feel sorry for badly educated, low-skilled
>>> bottom-enders. The spur of increased competition for low-skill jobs
>>> may be just what these clods need to begin to take responsibility for
>>> their welfare, and it may be just what some marginal high school
>>> students need to make them get serious about school.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not about Latinos or any other ethnicity/race.
>
>
> Yes, it is. It's about hatred of Latinos.
Here he goes again, introducing complete irrelevancies which happen to
be lies.
>
>
>>> You just don't know what you're talking about, and you never will.
T Jr Hardman
Try to not be ridiculous.
It makes sense just as much if those Americans manage to get new jobs
which pay so poorly that they must expend all or almost all of their
income just staying alive.
Flooding the country with low-skilled illegal aliens who will work for
next to nothing will certainly assure that the latter case is a very
likely, almost certain, case. Either the Americans lower their wages to
compete, or they don't work at _all_.
>>Mostly it's the rich who benefit from the lower cost of labor,
>>middle-class and working-class people most often do the work themselves,
>>which the rich pay illegal aliens to do.
>
>
> No, the biggest beneficiaries are the poor, who are able to buy products
> which would be beyond their reach, if they cost more....
Are you actually suggesting that the incredibly inexpensive products
made in China are somehow low-priced because the USA is overrun with
ILLEGAL ALIENS?
That is flat out INSANE.
>>Eventually the unemployed former middle-class and working-class Americans
>>wind up competing for the worst jobs with illegal aliens. The rich benefit
>>but everyone else gets screwed. In the end, the American non-elites are
>>begging to do the work of illegal aliens, wages continue to spiral
>>downwards, and whatever they're making, they can't afford to pay taxes,
>>and thus they start working off-the-books like the illegals, and pay no
>>taxes and can afford to buy almost nothing. The government starts to go
>>broke, all of the protections like OSHA or minimum wage are inaccessible
>>to the Americans working off of the books, and the entire class of the
>>non-elites are reduced to abject poverty, and eventually servitude or
>>serfdom.
>
>
> What kind of jobs do the illegal aliens take? As for the minimum wage, that
> is another one of those government ponzi schemes. It doesn't work in the
> long run.
The latter part is a complete irrelevancy.
Illegal aliens take any jobs they can get. Usually they first take jobs
in agriculture but abandon those as soon as they can make connections to
work on construction crews operated by unscrupulous employers. They
generally don't work for minimum wage for very long, but there is a
massive continuous resupply assuring that all of those minimum-wage 9or
less) jobs are filled.
>>If you wish that on the average American, you are clearly the enemy of all
>>of those people. If you voluntarily elect to be the enemy of all of the
>>American non-elite vast majority, if they should discover this and drag
>>you out of your house and rip you to bits, I won't shed any tears other
>>than that it has come to this, that the American have decided that the law
>>can't possibly benefit them, unless it's the law of the jungle and the law
>>of whoever strikes first, strikes best.
>>
>>Why do you hate the average American so much, "Jerry Okamura"?
>>
>
> Average Americans can take care of themselves a whole lot better, if they
> would do one simple thing....take advantage of the education that is
> provided to them
Really? Most white-collar workers have college degrees, don't they? Yet
still they are losing market share to foreign manufacturers and "smart
workers", H-1B workers are replacing them, the middle-class's
traditional occupations are being outsourced wherever possible, and
underemployment and unemployment among college grads is on the rise,
unless the grads are willing to work more hours for less pay with less
benefits and no assurance whatsoever of a pension.
Stop lying, please. Maybe you don't know you're lying, you made some
remarks above that were actually INSANE.
Alphonso M'buto Chiang
Allen Crawford
"You idiot. The fiscal sob story is the one that
garden-variety bigots like you trot out about
undocumented immigrants consuming more government
benefits than they pay for in taxes".
LE....You are one ignorant retarded mother fuckin' turd eatin'
dickwad! You will remain in denial until the illegals run you off
your property, dickhead! Read boy, read!
Leif Erikson <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:rIByg.1428$0e5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Allen Crawford
>
> > There is no shortage of
> > Americans with no skills.
>
> Their problem. They have no skills because they're
> lazy fucks who don't want to work hard at anything:
> jobs, skill acquisition, you name it. They deserve no
> sympathy.
>
Dam leef, you must be referring to you dumb fuck Lazy ass Mexicans
again!***LOL****
Leif Erikson
I'm not a "Contrarian" [sic] simply to be contrary,
Tiny Lump. The common lowbrow "wisdom" on illegal
immigration is wrong, period. There may be some good
reasons to put a stop to it, but they are *not* what
the nativist bigots like you imagine.
Leif Erikson
Yes, there is, Tiny Lump. It's a smokescreen, a
stalking horse. It's bullshit. You just don't like
Latinos, but you're too gutless to come out and say it.
Leif Erikson
No, it isn't.
Leif Erikson
ollie never connected.
>>> There is no shortage of
>>> Americans with no skills.
>>
>>
>>
>> Their problem. They have no skills because they're lazy fucks who
>> don't want to work hard at anything: jobs, skill acquisition, you name
>> it. They deserve no sympathy.
>>
>>
>>>> It's really astonishing listening to you Latino-hating bigots
>>>> pretending to feel sorry for badly educated, low-skilled
>>>> bottom-enders. The spur of increased competition for low-skill jobs
>>>> may be just what these clods need to begin to take responsibility
>>>> for their welfare, and it may be just what some marginal high school
>>>> students need to make them get serious about school.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not about Latinos or any other ethnicity/race.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is. It's about hatred of Latinos.
>
>
> Here he goes again, introducing complete irrelevancies which happen to
> be lies.
No, Tiny Lump, it is not irrelevant. Anti-Latino
bigotry is THE underlying sentiment behind
anti-immigrant ravings.
Jafo
>The common lowbrow "wisdom" on illegal
>immigration is wrong, period. There may be some good
>reasons to put a stop to it, but they are *not* what
>the nativist bigots like you imagine.
The problem is that you don't want to hear any of those reasons
and will deny any facts which anyone points out. You simply take
the lazy approach of writing off everyone who opposes illegal
immigration as being racists and let it go at that.
This attitude isn't consistent with the real world but it does
offer the benefit of removing the terrible burden of intelligent
thought from your shoulders.
--
Jafo
T Jr Hardman
I'll tell you what I really do dislike about some of the most-recent
"fresh off the boat" arrivals from Central America.
A friend of mine, who is a rather odd and somewhat scary-looking black
man despite all of his erudition and urbanity, relates a tale which I
thought to be sadly iconic.
According to him, he was approaching a bus-stop where there was a woman
who was clearly a native-american from Central America. She was changing
the diapers of her infant in arms, and simply pulled the old diaper off
of the infant, put on a new one, and left the old diaper sitting on the
ground. My friend started to say something to her and then decided it
might be more wise to be quiet when she began patting the back of her
hip in a motion clearly meant to inform him that she had a pistol. Her
older child, who was drinking a box of juice, finished his juice, and
staring at my friend in an openly hostile manner, stretched out his arm
and let the empty juice box fall to the ground next to the stinky used
diaper. My friend, so he says, decided he was walking rather than taking
the bus. When he passed that way again, the stinky diaper and discarded
juice box were still there.
Now, this is of course an anecdote, and "anecdote" is not the singular
of data. But you see, I believe him. Just the other day I had to pick up
a stinky discarded diaper from my front yard next to the bus-stop, and
every day I have to pick up discarded juice boxes, etc.
But what really annoys me is the Central American guy who habitually
cruises past, running the stop sign, and then tosses a half-case of
empty Corona bottles out of the window. I'm pretty sure he's aiming for
my vehicle; he's certainly spread a lot of broken glass under it, as
well as around the rest of the neighborhood.
Admittedly he's one guy, and probably the rest of the "spanish" also
think he's a complete asshole for doing that. Why would they think that?
Because some few years ago, the leaders of the local "hispanic"
community discovered that a penchant for littering was the single most
popular objection to the Central American "immigrants". They started up
a public-service campaign and serious outrageous littering by
"immigrants" stopped, almost overnight. As I understand it, mostly they
just had to tell people what trash cans were, and that they should use
them if they wanted to be considered civilized.
Perhaps someone will explain to them now, that having more children than
is necessary to maintain the population is as much an offense against
the very earth as is shattering glass where the shards will wind up in
the feet of innocent children. Because the wounds of the foot of the
child can be healed. The damage from overpopulation and environmental
destruction perhaps cannot be healed.
By the way, idiot, would I have done this webpage if I didn't care about
the planet?
http://www.earthops.org/earth.html
Fool.
Oliver Costich
<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
Wage earners, asshole. You haven't a fucking clue about economics or
statistics. Look at the studies/articles by Krugman/Reisch or the
Census Bureau.
>
>You stupid fuck: people in the "lowest quintile" (of
>something, I guess...) are young people, who *always*
>have high unemployment rates relative to others. Count
>on lying FUCKING BIGOT ollie to try to lie with statistics.
Show me data.
>
>> There is no shortage of
>> Americans with no skills.
>
>Their problem. They have no skills because they're
>lazy fucks who don't want to work hard at anything:
>jobs, skill acquisition, you name it. They deserve no
>sympathy.
So what? Import some more unskilled? What is your argument, exactly.
>
>
>>>It's really astonishing listening to you Latino-hating
>>>bigots pretending to feel sorry for badly educated,
>>>low-skilled bottom-enders. The spur of increased
>>>competition for low-skill jobs may be just what these
>>>clods need to begin to take responsibility for their
>>>welfare, and it may be just what some marginal high
>>>school students need to make them get serious about school.
>>
>>
>> It's not about Latinos or any other ethnicity/race.
>
>Yes, it is. It's about hatred of Latinos.
According to you, and we know what that's worth.
>
>
>>>You just don't know what you're talking about, and you
>>>never will.
How would you know if I did?
Oliver Costich
The cites have been posted here ad nauseum and I'm tired of digging
them out for everyone halfwit asshole that shows up with no data and
no analysis. He can use Google groups to find them if he wants but I
doubt he even wants to see data that contradicts him.
Oliver Costich
<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
Based on what? How do you know this? Do you have a survey or other
evidence based on real social science or do you just "feel" it in your
feable mind?
Oliver Costich
M'buto Chiang) wrote:
>In article <qSgyg.3993$gF6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>pi...@thedismalscience.net says...
>
>>There's a labor shortage, you economics-illiterate blue
>>crab. That's why there's a giant sucking sound of
>>America sucking in Latin American labor. Unemployment
>>is at nearly historic lows.
>>
>>It's really astonishing listening to you Latino-hating
>>bigots pretending to feel sorry for badly educated,
>>low-skilled bottom-enders. The spur of increased
>>competition for low-skill jobs may be just what these
>>clods need to begin to take responsibility for their
>>welfare, and it may be just what some marginal high
>>school students need to make them get serious about school.
>>
>>You just don't know what you're talking about, and you
>>never will.
>
>Ok, so if there is a labor shortage for the lower skilled jobs, then obviously
>the wages for these workers must be going up.Supply and demand, my friend,
>can't fight supply and demand, its the law! ...What? They're not going up?
>They're going down?
>
They're going down because the supply is being grown by importing
cheal illegal labor.
Oliver Costich
<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
How is it a value judgment? Show me an example of an anaysis.
>
>
>>>>And thanks for playing the race card
>>>
>>>The vehement opposition to so-called "illegal immigrants" is almost
>>>wholly race-based.
>>
>>
>> Mine is based on economic and environmental concerns.
>
>No, it isn't. You haven't stated any legitimate ones.
> Your opposition is based on class and ethnicity.
Apparently you have a reading impairment.
Your positions are all pulled out of your ass.
Explain how a racist is married to a foreign born Latina, a legal
immigrant and now citizen.
As for class, why would anyone be in favor of increasing the
proportion of poor?
Oliver Costich
It's not our responsibility to disprove his claims. It's his
responsibility to support them.
As in Statistics, hypothesis testing particularly, rejection of a
claim is different than supporting it.
Oliver Costich
<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
Then what are those good reasons? Let's see if you can really produce
an idea.
Oliver Costich
>As viewed from alt.california, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>The common lowbrow "wisdom" on illegal
>>immigration is wrong, period. There may be some good
>>reasons to put a stop to it, but they are *not* what
>>the nativist bigots like you imagine.
>
>The problem is that you don't want to hear any of those reasons
>and will deny any facts which anyone points out. You simply take
>the lazy approach of writing off everyone who opposes illegal
>immigration as being racists and let it go at that.
The race card is the last bastion of those who can't produce a real
argument.
Oliver Costich
<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>Oliver Costich wrote:
>
>> On 24 Jul 2006 14:04:38 -0700, "Leif Erikson" <notg...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oliver Costich wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:53:28 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>><okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:7uh3c2129ratuqq4s...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:21:07 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>>><okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Oliver Costich" <olc-ca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:74nfb21vllmsjhuc5...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
>>>>>>>><okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Or, they will move their operations overseas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>At least in that case we avoid bearing the social costs associated
>>>>>>>>with cheap laborers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And jobs that these companies would have given to workers in the US?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How do you know they would have given the jobs to Americans? If they
>>>>>>cost rises above what they can pay and still be profitable, they can
>>>>>>either go overseas or go out of business. Either way the US jobs are
>>>>>>lost, but by not importing cheap labor we avoid the social costs
>>>>>>attached to it. So while neither importing cheap labor or outsourcing
>>>>>>is good, one is better than the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is better than the other.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not a genius at economics I see.
>>>
>>>You're going to reveal your own utter ignorance on economics in the
>>>next sentence, shitbag (not to mention your inability to spell).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Importing cheap labor, we loose
>>>
>>>LOSE, you fuckwit; not "loose".
>>
>>
>> Nitpicking spelling and typos
>
>It isn't nitpicking, and his error wasn't a typo. It
>was *ignorance* - the kind of ignorance that means
>*none* of what he says is worthwhile.
Where you born an asshole or did you get some kind of special
training? Nitpicking typos (a second "o" is easily a typo) comes in
right behind invoking Nazi/Hitler and the race card for identifying
people without a smidgen of intelligence.
>
>
>>>>American jobs
>>>
>>>Right there - ignorance. We do not lose, or "loose", American jobs.
>>>That's the Lump of Labor fallacy. Look it up.
>>
>>
>>
>> I know what it is and it's not applicable
>
>It's applicable, and I believe you don't know what it
>is, ollie.
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy. Now everyone
can read about it and see it isn't relevant.
>
>
>>>
>>>>and put Americans on welfare
>>>
>>>False.
>>
>>
>> Gee, I'm convinced.
>
>No evidence of it putting Americans on welfare.
Duh! Pepole who lose jobs don't go on welfare? People who have to work
for significantly less don't get food stamps? People who get priced
out of health care don't get it covered by others paying for it?
You're a fucking moron without the logical skills of a baboon.
>
>
>>>>AND pay the social costs
>>>
>>>No, shithead. There are some economic costs, but on net, the
>>>immigrants are a plus for the economy. The problem is in the
>>>distribution of costs and benefits. That the immigrants are a net
>>>benefit for the economy is not in dispute by economists.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
>No, it isn't. The value of what undocumented
>immigrants produces exceeds the value of what they consume.
>
>
>> For example, see Borjas
>
>Borjas does not dispute that the undocumented
>immigrants produce greater value than they consume.
>
>
>
>>>Before you start, asshole, you can leave out any of your merely fiscal
>>>sob story. Don't even bother. The economic impact of immigrants is
>>>not limited to government receipts and expenditures.
>>
>>
>> Who siad it was? Amd I have no fiscal sob story. I have no debt, own
>> an upscale house and late model cars, and have an income twice that
>> average family's even though I am retired and have been for 10 years.
>
>You idiot. The fiscal sob story is the one that
>garden-variety bigots like you trot out about
>undocumented immigrants consuming more government
>benefits than they pay for in taxes.
That they do. Show me evidence that this is wrong. You can make an
argumnet for the costs/benefits of productivity, but you can't show me
that they pay enough in taxes to cover their social costs.
>
>I'm interested in their fiscal impact. I'm interested
>in their total economic impact, something much broader
>than their fiscal impact. Stick the fiscal sob stories
>back up your ass where you got them.
Total economic impact doesn't mean much when the benefit, if any,
flows only to the richest.
>
>
>>>>of the illegals and their families. Outsourcing has the same effect
>>>>EXCEPT we are off the hook for the social costs, which are tens of
>>>>billions of dollars.
>>>>
>>>>Can you really be this stupid?
>>>
>>>You have no room to call anyone stupid. You eat, breathe and sleep
>>>stupid.
>>
>>
>>
>> And all you've got is insult.
>
>Nope. I have economic theory and analysis. The value
>of what the undocumented immigrants produce exceeds the
>value of what they consume. This is not in dispute.
"Value" encompasses more than the sum of the dollars produced.
You have failed to show a single instance of economic theory or
analysis.
Oliver Costich
You don't have any cites, do you?
Oliver Costich
<pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>Oliver Costich wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jul 2006 13:47:23 -0700, "Leif Erikson" <notg...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey, Tiny Lump - why'd you switch your nym?
>>>
>>>
>>>Tiny Lump of Ferret SHIT whined:
>>>
>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tiny Lump of Ferret SHIT whined:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tiny Lump of Ferret SHIT whined:
>>>>>>>>>>American jobs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Right there - ignorance. We do not lose, or "loose", American jobs.
>>>>>>>>>That's the Lump of Labor fallacy. Look it up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>and put Americans on welfare
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>False.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>AND pay the social costs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, shithead. There are some economic costs, but on net, the
>>>>>>>>>immigrants are a plus for the economy. The problem is in the
>>>>>>>>>distribution of costs and benefits. That the immigrants are a net
>>>>>>>>>benefit for the economy is not in dispute by economists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Before you start, asshole, you can leave out any of your merely fiscal
>>>>>>>>>sob story. Don't even bother. The economic impact of immigrants is
>>>>>>>>>not limited to government receipts and expenditures.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>of the illegals and their families. Outsourcing has the same effect
>>>>>>>>>>EXCEPT we are off the hook for the social costs, which are tens of
>>>>>>>>>>billions of dollars.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Can you really be this stupid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You have no room to call anyone stupid. You eat, breathe and sleep
>>>>>>>>>stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
How about answering one question with something of substance? Pick
one, any one. So far you've not been able to do this.
Oliver Costich
I like Latinos just fine. I'm married to one. And I'm not happy about
illegals of any stripe. But just keep playing your race card. It's all
you've got.
Jafo
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>Tiny Lump of Ferret Shit whined:
>>>There's nothing laughable nor transparent about my concern
>>>for the environment.
>>Yes, there is, Tiny Lump. It's a smokescreen, a stalking horse.
>>It's bullshit. You just don't like Latinos, but you're too
>>gutless to come out and say it.
>By the way, idiot, would I have done this webpage if I didn't
>care about the planet?
>
>http://www.earthops.org/earth.html
>
>Fool.
And that page has been up since sometime in the 90's.
--
Jafo
Alphonso M'buto Chiang
>>>> It's not about Latinos or any other ethnicity/race.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. It's about hatred of Latinos.
>>
>>
>> Here he goes again, introducing complete irrelevancies which happen to
>> be lies.
>
>No, Tiny Lump, it is not irrelevant. Anti-Latino
>bigotry is THE underlying sentiment behind
>anti-immigrant ravings.
Jesus H Christ, how many times do I have to tell you that when you use
"immigrant" for "illegal alien", no one that's half aware believes anything
else you say.
T Jr Hardman
IIRC since about late 1995.
Heck, the whole site of http://www.earthops.org and the site
http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/ which is a relocation of
http://www.clark.net/klaatu/ was originally a repository of "likely to
disappear" sites dealing mostly with space exploration and environmental
issues, most specifically "Mission to Planet Earth" as NASA described
most of their unmanned missions "back in the day".
Earth Operations Central was, after all, all about the pretentions of
the friendly space alien "klaatu" reprising his visit as described in
the 1952 film "The Day the Earth Stood Still", but this time instead of
threatening the planet with destruction should they transgress the rules
of the super-powered galactic-civilization robot policeman Gort,
"klaatu" was here to show people how the world worked, and how to keep
it working that way. Otherwise, as you could see in the contemporary
movie "the Arrival", people would be seen be prevalent space cultures as
being well on the road to making the planet uninhabitable to their own
kind, but perfectly suited to alien species who would have no qualms at
all about helping mankind along in creating a world unsuited to humanity
but perfectly for the aliens. The aliens, of course, could easily and
rightly say, "if you can't take care of it, you don't deserve it". And
to this day, they do.
Thus, in supporting the illegal aliens who breed like rats and don't
give a damn about how they destroy the world and its ecosystems -- after
all, they cut down most of their own rain forests -- "Rudy" or "Leif" is
supporting the eventual destruction of the entire extant ecosystem. You
might as well consider him the frontline propagandist of hostile space
creatures who offer immense wealth to the Earthly elites, so long as
they cooperate in converting the human homeworld into a planet actively
hostile to human life, but ripe for the Invaders.
So, "Rudy", when it comes to Anal Probes, do you prefer to give or to
receive them?
Earth Operations Central, on behalf of all humanity and all of the life
of this world, stands opposed to your senseless and idiotic pogrom
against humanity, in which these illegal aliens you profess to love and
to champion, are but your illiterate pawns.
Please keep arguing for the destruction of the sole global power that
would have a chance against actual Space Invaders. That is all for which
you argue; you argue only for the destruction of the USA and the
reduction of its capability to defend against a terrestrial invasion,
much less an extraterrestrial one. But we who are real Americans realize
it's our duty to defend the world, even though our President declared
War on Terra.
Now shut the fuck up, dolt.
--klaatu, you may now tune to something other than the SciFi channel,
but still keep a sharp eye out for the Cylons
T Jr Hardman
Of course he doesn't.
--
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool
than to speak foolishness and remove all doubt.
--Aesop
T Jr Hardman
He's not interested in anything other than risibly vague claims which he
quickly abandons. A true sociopath.
T Jr Hardman
It's just a claim he likes to make, since it's effectively not capable
of being either proven or disproven. It's just a matter of his
delusional opinion.
T Jr Hardman
Save 'em all as a list of websites and I'll mount 'em on my own website
as a quick-and-dirty list of Absolutely Documented Truth to fling a
FuckingAssholes(tm).
I've already got a fairly large list, I should probably organize them.
BTW you do of course know that he called you a bigot because he knows
you're not one. He expects you to argue that point instead of your
well-known and universally-accepted facts.
Fortunately for all, only he is stupid enough to think that you will
succumb to that ploy.
Leif Erikson
Their brown skin and their Spanish language. But we
already knew that.