Self Editor

Forum: pol
Page 3038
Subject: The Jag E-mail Joke Thread

Posted by: Jag - [360261522] Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 09:26

Zen, has his far-left cartoons and like Fox News, I think we should be fair and balanced, so I am sharing some of the e-mails I get sent almost daily.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 09:27

TAKE DOWN the FEEDERs!

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it is, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.

Then came the bird crap. It was
everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table .... everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon , the back yard was like it used to be .. quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now let's see ...
Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, and free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments ar e housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen
by an emergency room doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to " press one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 09:28

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?

My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.

Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria , Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT GO TO OUR SOCIAL SEC URITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France .

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home . On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France , or maybe China .

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France , Germany , and Russia . Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mess amiss.

I have instructed t he Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2 President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am goi ng to put 'em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there. They care.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn too-tin."

Nearly a century of trying to help folks l ive a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America It is time to eliminate homelessness in America . To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America . Thank you and good night.

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 09:28

I think I missed the punchline.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 09:30

Posted by: Jag

Had to look for it MITH, but I think I found it.

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 12:09

See, now you guys did the same thing I did in the cannabis thread. You only posted to poke at somebody. So how are you guys any different?

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 12:16

ummmmm cause we're right and you're not?

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 12:26

you guys did the same thing

My post was neither off topic nor personally insulting.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 12:42

Here one I received, I tend to think it was authored by people who are of opinions similar to the authors of the emails in posts 1 and 2:

Subject: Who is Barack Obama?

Probable Democrat presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, 'He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.'

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking Major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!

ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office - he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Kuran (Their equevelancy to our Bible, but very different beliefs)

Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!!

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 12:45

ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office - he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Kuran (Their equevelancy to our Bible, but very different beliefs)

Gotta love snopes;

link

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 18:47

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to " press one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Funny...I live in an Arab country. Every package has english, many don't even have Arabic.

All the bank machines here have english.

The airports in all countries I visit have english signs and voice announcements...even though it's not an english speaking country.

Almost everyone I talk to Indians, Pakis, certainly the local Arabs speak English.

When someone doesn't speak English I am shocked...in an Arabic country.

Maybe they are just smarter then us Jag.

I'm not really sure I understand your point, it's a big world now, Jag. We are global, we are going global, the rest of the world is globes ahead of us. You should be glad they are putting both languages on the box so you can catch up.

You can only dream they will start putting Chinese on the boxes soon because you will be doing their laundry soon...

Little more starch please boy.

biliruben
ID: 5610442715
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 19:20

There always be small, backward people, frightened of change and of those that are different.

They're called Conservatives.

J-Bar
ID: 40082021
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:40

and there will always be big, pompous people, that change frighteningly just to be different from others.

they're called liberals

angryCHAIR
ID: 29955918
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:45

Box: You don't think by posting this thread that Jag doesn't expect a verbal battle?

C'mon! That is his MO.

He's as predictable as any I've ever seen on this thread!

sarge #4: nice call!

Tree
ID: 40492918
Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 21:53

and there will always be big, pompous people, that change frighteningly just to be different from others.

what on god's green earth does that even mean? big people? what, are we Andre the Giant or something?

"change frighteningly"??? what on earth does THAT mean.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 06:09

You don't think by posting this thread that Jag doesn't expect a verbal battle?

And Jag is the only one enticing verbal battles? No, it's just that he and I are the ones getting called out for it.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 17:35

And Jag is the only one enticing verbal battles? No, it's just that he and I are the ones getting called out for it.

well Box in the cannabis thread you made a clever joke...butt buddies...no problem, very clever.

Most people who smoke cannabis (not me at this point in life) don't think of them selves as "drug addicts" though, anymore then someone who habitually drinks alcohol (Me) is a drug addict.

I mean if they wake up and start smoking in the morning, and smoke all day, and get nothing done...yeah right, no doubt they are a drug addict. Just like the guy on the corner drinking colt 45 at 9AM.

Most people I know, who are adults, work hard all day and then come home and in the evening have a hit or two instead of a six pack. Does that make them a drug addict??? Anymore then someone who comes home and has a couple vodka tonics?

Or is it just not your drug of choice?

There's no difference between pot and booze accept legality in some states so no one really finds the term "drug addicts", humorous, or clever.

Butt buddies was good though "huh, he said butt, did you hear him? huh huh butt"

Alcohol is likely the more dangerous drug of the two. Certainly at the very least the jury is out.

Jag on the other hand intentionally creates inflammatory posts, I think, at least I hope, simply because he likes to bait people into fights. The very definition of Trolling.

A bi-lingual cereal box is something to be concerned about?

I bought a cell phone this week. Instructions in 8 languages. (Nokia by the way, did I mention they have a 40% market share now...Finish company, I'm sure there's a Jag in Finland complaining the box has instructions in 8 languages while Nokia cleans everyones clock)

I mean please Box, it's not 1952 anymore, we aren't on Leave it to Beaver, but Jag is deputy Fife (?) with his one bullet in his gun and his silly grin, hitching his pants up and wondering if Aunt Bee has baked a pie today.

Now what was your point? What is it about Jag's posts you find so insightful? I'd love to hear?

Is it because you still enjoy watching reruns of the Andy Griffith show?

So not being bothered by more then one language on a box makes you a filthy liberal?

Yawn....smirk.

The group of people who still thinks this way, especially their children, will wonder what hit them when they are run over by a train.

The educated, progressive, yes even capitalist Americans who adapt to the future will be asking what the Andy Griffith show is? While the caveman populist sits on the porch with his shotgun waiting for the invasion instead of joing the party.

I have a Chinese girlfriend, I've had a Japanese and a Vietnamese girl friend...I suppose in Jags book that makes me gutter trash?

Let's see how YUM does after the earnings report, however it turns out, I'm assured the Chinese love KFC, and the Pizza Huts are three stories tall and you still have to take a number just to get a seat, I know because I have a Chinese....well you understand...should be a good long term hold whatever happens next week.

Multi culturalism is just a smart capitalist strategy if your not to backasswerd to see what is in front of you.

Right?

You strike me as that reasonable Box...

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 19:40

well Box in the cannabis thread you made a clever joke...butt buddies...no problem, very clever.

Nerve, you have to admit there is a group of people here who don't police their own, agree more than anyone else you've ever known agree, and just act like overall jerks; namely SZ, Mith, Tree, and Sarge. You're an objective guy. You know these people can be dicks.

Most people I know, who are adults, work hard all day and then come home and in the evening have a hit or two instead of a six pack. Does that make them a drug addict??? Anymore then someone who comes home and has a couple vodka tonics?

Or is it just not your drug of choice?

If someone does a drug everyday yes that makes them a drug addict. If they can go months at a time without it, then perhaps not, but otherwise yes they are.

Jag on the other hand intentionally creates inflammatory posts, I think, at least I hope, simply because he likes to bait people into fights. The very definition of Trolling.

I don't agree. I believe that people who are conservative that post here on a regular basis are treated as trolls. If we're so interested in conTROLLing the trolls let's start with Tree.

Multi culturalism is just a smart capitalist strategy if your not to backasswerd to see what is in front of you.

Right?

You strike me as that reasonable Box...

Some of the best ethnic food comes in a container that isn't in English I've learned. Now, the whole "Press 1 for English". I am with Jag on that.

When I call CS at a business it is usually because I am PO'd for one reason or another at their product. I do not want any more barriers than absolutely necessary in front of the solution to my problem. Pressing 1 for English is just one more barrier kinda like how you've got to hear 5 options for whatever department. Just let me talk to a GD human being.

Tree
ID: 560233015
Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 19:50

Nerve, you have to admit there is a group of people here who don't police their own, agree more than anyone else you've ever known agree, and just act like overall jerks; namely SZ, Mith, Tree, and Sarge.

it cracks me up to no end that you're still going along with this make-believe world, as if you never even read any of the other posts discussing this, or have turned a blind eye to every single time MITH has called me or sarge or anyone else out for things he felt simply weren't up to par.

I don't agree (about Jag being a troll). I believe that people who are conservative that post here on a regular basis are treated as trolls. If we're so interested in conTROLLing the trolls let's start with Tree.

start with me. compare my body of work here - good and bad - with Jag's. or with your own.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 20:18

Tree there isn't enough time in my day to go over your s#it. I do know that I'm not the only one that thinks you are a troll.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 21:00

I believe that people who are conservative that post here on a regular basis are treated as trolls.

Ask Baldwin if houpt and Sludge and Madman and Toral were treated as trolls. Ask Baldwin how liberal morons like Left Wingers and other dolts were given any greater respect than you around here.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. proof that you're wrong about this bias is offered, you fail to acknowledge it. Think that might have something to do with it. Nahhh, can't be.

You see exactly what you want to see. Its easier for you than the truth.

Tree
ID: 560233015
Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 21:05

1. i like how you've ignored the first part of my post. you know, the one you ignored in the other thread as well?

2. you've now been unintentionally funny two posts in a row.

this time, it's the irony of you saying "I do know that I'm not the only one that thinks you are a troll" on the heels of "you have to admit there is a group of people here who don't police their own, agree more than anyone else you've ever known agree."

thanks for the unintentional comedy, but, by all means, keep on trying. 1000 monkeys, 1000 typewriters. sooner or later, you'll get it, sport.

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 22:32

I cant recall, the nr of times MITH has taken me to task Box. Can I be a dick? Damn right. ARE you a dick? Damn right. And theres the difference. I know for a fact I can be, but you dont seem to realize you ARE one.

Tree
ID: 560233015
Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 22:43

Ask Baldwin if houpt and Sludge and Madman and Toral were treated as trolls.

and to follow that, i've been begging for Steve Houpt to post here more. and i had very, very strong philosophical and idealogical disagreements with him. VERY strongly.

but i miss the conservative posters here who made debate fun. who made it intelligent. who really challenged you, and would back up their posts with links and facts. there are still a few left, but even MBJ doesn't chime in as much as he used to.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 07:06

Can I be a dick? Damn right.

I'll go on record as saying that there are times when I am a bigger dick then anyone here...except Jag.

Box If someone does a drug everyday yes that makes them a drug addict. If they can go months at a time without it, then perhaps not, but otherwise yes they are.

Box I have at least one drink most nights, usually 2-3, though rarely more then 4 (on weekend)and I never drink until after dinner.

I cannot go months without one. No way. I don't smoke pot however.

So according to your definition I am a drug addict? If you agree with that definition I will go along with your premise. I think there are many addicts in the USA, biggest group being drinkers, but many of us have it under decent control.

I don't "forget what I did the night before", drive drunk, or fall asleep drunk in a chair.

For other religion is a type of addiction. Or excersize...

Now Box, if you are so put off by the occasional bi-ligual prompt, what would you ever do if you went to a foreign country that doesn't speak English?

Well don't worry, the rest of the world doesn't mind the extra button.

I talked to the security guard in my building this morning, he's Indian but speaks passable english. I ate lunch at a Thai restaurant today, the waitress was Filipino and spoke fluent english, I bought a newspaper at the corner grocery, the cashier is Lebanese and he speaks good English.

The world is catching up, because they are willing to deal with what it takes to live in a global world. Important message to teach your kids or grand kids or they will get left behind.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 08:00

I get e-mails like these sent to me a few times a week, they are not debating points, lighten up. They are caricatures, much like Zen's cartoons.

I really shouldn't have to be explaining this.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 09:49

I get e-mails like these sent to me a few times a week, they are not debating points, lighten up. They are caricatures, much like Zen's cartoons.

Jag if that is the context you posted them it would be no issue. You made a point of stating at the end of one of them that you agree with most of the email.

Your comment after the first one you posted...

I don't agree with everything, but I agree with a lot of this email.

blue hen
ID: 16322314
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 10:13

there is a group of people here who don't police their own, agree more than anyone else you've ever known agree, and just act like overall jerks; namely SZ, Mith, Tree, and Sarge.

I have a couple comments here.

1. I am fairly offended that I was not included in this list. Even my own friends would classify me as an "overall jerk."

2. I have personally met Seattle Zen, Tree, and MITH, and they are indeed three of the nicest people I know. Opinionated maybe, but jerk hardly describes any of the three. None of them is a troll either, except for Tree who slightly resembles one when he doesn't shave that damn chin music.

As you were.

Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 10:31

None of them is a troll either, except for Tree who slightly resembles one when he doesn't shave that damn chin music.

slightly?!?!?! now i feel slighted...

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 10:32

<----To preserve both the relative peace and personal egos;

I hereby nominate BH for honorary membership in the "I'm a dick" club;

and Tree for honorary membership in the "I look like a Troll" club

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 10:32

Even my own friends would classify me as an "overall jerk."

I always thjought of you as more of a dumbass.

:)

Jag
ID: 360261522
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 11:07

I know for a fact Blue Hen is not a dick as he has been kind enough to give me advice on my web site.

BH, I kinda wish I kept your advice and stayed with Yahoo, I moved to a larger site and I am using a more complex web builder. I feel like my head is going to explode at times, now.

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 11:46

I dunno how I overlooked this thread.

C'mon Box, how can you call Tree, SZ and MITH those names. I know I am biased cos I am sorta politically aligned with these guys, and two of them are fellow NYers (Giants!!), butt, I mean, they are nice. To me, it's about whether one is "starting up." I don't see these guys hardly ever looking for a fight, which is trolling. Jag, I think you enjoy sparking it up here; you certainly consistently call liberals (and I am one of them) names. You name-caller. Does that make you a dick. Yeah, I guess.

Dick, dick, dick, dick. Cheney is a Dick. Let's make sure we have the appropriate standard here. A true dick in every way.

#16 nerve: Great post.

Box/Jag. I really don't like weeding through voice menus either, but the question about what language we speak, and the reaction if it's not auto-English seems a bit old-fashioned (that's the mild perception...xenophobic would be the other end of the continuum). Times are a changin', let alone the fact that our country is the quote-unquote melting pot of the world...if there's every a place that should be multi-lingual, and not bent out of shape that English is not some 100% assumed language, it should be our great country. It's okay! It's still IN America. I get the willies hearing some conservatives blab about making English the "official language." Why? What are you afraid of? We're not all "English"...!

Anyway, I think liberal/moderate thinkers outnumber the conservatives here, but Jag and Box you do sometimes antagonize, and I don't think that it's usually in reaction to the non-con's here initiating personal attacks. I just don't see it, at least it's very rare. It's okay to attack the idea, facts, opinions, but attacking the person, or stereotyping (i.e. grouping folks based on a common attribute), taht aint cool, and I see that a lot with Jag. You dick. Aaaaaar.

blue hen: Very funny.

Now about drugs. First thing that came to my mind when I read SZ's post was the Alice in Chains song (about some harder drugs) Junkhead: "What's my drug of choice...and I do it a lot."

Addiction has accepted definitions in that literature. I have a few friends who are psychologists who do research in this area and/or treat addicts...blah blah blah. Ultimately, addiction is when one needs the drug as part of their daily ability to function such that disruption of this routine adversely affects their behavior (e.g. that morning drink; withdrawal symptoms, either physio or psycho). However, more common sense-wise, it's about control and moderation and right place and right time and social appropriateness (e.g. even though one might be in control, and only have one drink, popping open a brew at "Alvin & the Chipmunks" with the kiddies prolly aint socially appro...necessary, oh yes, and trust me, a freakin little doobage with that movie just might actually have made it enjoyable). Lest I digress. You get my meanin'.

Rambling on...

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 13:12

Box/Jag. I really don't like weeding through voice menus either, but the question about what language we speak, and the reaction if it's not auto-English seems a bit old-fashioned (that's the mild perception...xenophobic would be the other end of the continuum). Times are a changin', let alone the fact that our country is the quote-unquote melting pot of the world...if there's every a place that should be multi-lingual, and not bent out of shape that English is not some 100% assumed language, it should be our great country. It's okay! It's still IN America. I get the willies hearing some conservatives blab about making English the "official language." Why? What are you afraid of? We're not all "English"...!

I think the official language issue should be one of states rights (Instead of the official language of America we have the official language of Illinois, Florida, etc.) as well in addition to a host of other issues. My gripe with phone directories still stands. We need less barriers to the solutions of our problems, not more, I don't like it because I don't want to deal with another menu option. I don't give a toss if a company has a CS department that is multilingual, I just don't want to be bothered by it as a customer.

Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 13:32

to the guys who don't like non-English language stuff on their phone menus and such.

i'm curious, where was your TV made? your DVD player? your stereo? and really, any of your electronic equipment? oh, and what about your car?

i suppose instructions, manuals, and any sort of help that might be provided should only be in the tongue of the company that manufactured those goods?

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 13:33

Right Box, but what's a bother to you is a nice benefit to someone else who is English as a second language. Is it that much of a bother? C'mon, lighten up. And if any state went out of its way to spend a minute, single tax $ considering whether to make English a state language, I'd be against it, cos, IMO, it's not necessary. We're trying to help all Americans get things done. What is bureaucracy to you is helpful to someone else. Their language needs, IMO, are more priority than your convenience needs (which is like 10 seconds of your time). The multi-language, multi-cultural aspect of our country is sorta part of what makes America great, and part of our fabric. The more we embrace it, the better we are, IMO. Same thing with race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 13:49

I would hate to hear the offical language of Louisianna, Laissez les bon temps roulet, Cher.

Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 22:44

Ask Baldwin - liberals

Boxman

You've been treated unfairly in a massive flagrant way. I have no idea why other than a suspicion that when I left, the trolls thot they could quickly blitkreig/gangrape the rest of the conservatives and raise their koolaid in victory and the sooner they booed the rest of you out the sooner they'd have the place all to themselves.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 17:46

the sooner they booed the rest of you out the sooner they'd have the place all to themselves.
That's not fair Baldwin. The poli boards has always been about libs debating cons, if either side was eliminated what would remain is a boring circle jerk.

In fact it's sad all the Bush/Iraq supporters have left.

In fairness because the discourse has become more childish but also because their praise of Bush and the military industrial complex blew up in their face.

Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Fri, Feb 01, 2008, 21:00

I doubt too many people changed their minds or feel anything blew up in their faces. You are making the mistake of thinking others draw the same conclusions you do.

angryCHAIR
ID: 29955918
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 10:11

Boldwin: or you (yourself) are making the mistake that others draw the same conclusion as you.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 10:20

I honestly dont see how antyone can with any intellectual honesty at all; evaluate the past 7 years and derive the conclusion put forth by those who have opposed this admin all along. (with some very few exceptions of course. but overall, this admin has been a national disaster)

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 10:41

Pro big business, anti-tax (but not fiscal), conservatives, authoritarian extremists, neoconservatives, unabashed Republican partisans and anyone who is dim enough to still believe that Saddam Hussein was enough of a national security threat to warrant an unprecedented preventive war will find more good in the presidency of George W Bush than bad. Nationally, I believe that makes up something like 60% of right-leaning people. At the Rotoguru politics forum, I believe it's something like 85% of current right-leaning regular and occasional posters.

rockafellerskank
Dude
ID: 27652109
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 12:13

I live in AZ. Immigrants and Spanish speaking population is a huge issue here. I see more activities than just press "1" for English.

Signs, ATMs, radio/television, advertising, policing, are among the items that have English/Spanish dual components. When I get on a local airline, safety instructions are given in both languages. Good. I want EVERYONE to understand what to do in the event of an emergency. That guy next to me might save MY life.

Now, as to a business adding a "press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish" prompt. Do you know why they do that?

A political statement? No.
To be altruistic ? No.
Regulations? No.
To annoy Box/Jag or others? No.

They do it because it is good business. The Hispanic / Spanish only speaking population carried A LOT of buying power that companies cannot afford to ignore. If they can be Spanish-friendly and increase their market share in this demographic, they are more profitable. Who do you think 1000's of Spanish speaking citizens are banking with in Phoenix? A: those banks that they can communicate with!

I'd be willing to bet the amount on increased business B of A got when they added bilingual ATMs far and away exceeds the amount they lost because a small % of customers like Box/Jag are annoyed. They'll trade your pennies for those dollars any day.

After all, this is just Capitalism-- the American way. And, oh yeah, I'm strongly conservative. ;)

walk
ID: 4215212
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 13:08

Good one, rockafellaskank. It's good business. Our ATMs for the bank I work for that has is named on behalf of a big league team in your state are also multi-lingual. It's good biz, and common sense. The first thing you have to do when you use the ATM is choose your language. It's not tooooooo time consuming ;-)

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 13:29

There's this state due east of Arizona called New Mexico. Wonder where that name came from.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 13:36

I really don't care about the press 1 or 2, but I do want the border secured and to argue for open borders is nonsensical.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 13:40

Arguing against a waste of money fence, is not the same as arguing FOR open borders. Arguing FOR ease of immigration process, is not the same as arguing FOR open borders. To argue that they are the same, is nonsensical.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:23

People illegally jumping the border is not an immigration process. If you have a better idea than a fence, well, let's hear it. If you all you do poo poo ideas on how to secure the border with no rational solution yourself, you are just part of the problem.

Tree
ID: 54124212
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:36

If you have a better idea than a fence, well, let's hear it.

good to know your belief system on this is more in line with the communists of east berlin than conservative icon Ronald Reagan.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:44

If you all you do poo poo ideas on how to secure the border with no rational solution yourself, you are just part of the problem.

What's your problem with simply taking away the incentive for the vast majority of them to come here in the first place by going after the companies that hire them -- while simultaneously making it easier for them to come here and work legally?

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:46

re 48, I HAVE put forth ideas. A fence, is a HUGE friggin waste of tax dollars. Why those on ther right, who lament wasted tax expenditure, rally around this massive waste of funds is one of lifes more interesting mysteries.

More BP Agents;

More electronic surveillance;

Better communication systems to allow BP personnel to respond to an electronic detection, more quickly;

Use of UAVs to "patrol" remote stretches of ground.

Yes, in some cases these might even cost more than a fence. BUT, they would also show a return IMHO.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:50

Mith, your idea is the worse of all, it hurts the economy, creates more crime and damages generations to come. You can't just put every problem on business, sometimes you really do sound like a socialist.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:52

re 52...THAT solution, is the VERY solution being emplaced in Oklahoma and being echoed by Republicans across the country as the "solution". AZ and NM are considering virtually identical legislation. Really JAG, if you're gonna be a Rep, you might oughta look into what the Reps stand for.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:53

I believe in going to an expert for solutions to a problem and Israel knows how to keep unwanted people out, if they use a fence, I want the same fence.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:57

Isreal has less land border than the proposed fence. Isreal is approx 60 miles wide and the military can respond within minutes, with armor, artillery and combat air support. NONE of those facts, holds true across the US southern border. Thus, diffrent circumstances, different solution.

Try again, and lets at least ATTEMPT, to compare apples to apples instead apples to lasagna. They just aint the same things.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:57

Sarge, I don't give a damn what Republicans do, I am a free thinker. Their policy will work on a state by state basis, because the illegal immigrants can just jump another border, this time to another state. I hope every conservative minded state does the same and all the illegals go to a sanctuary state and we can see how the Libs deal with the problem.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 14:58

...I am a free thinker...

liar

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 15:00

I believe you could get private and state financial backing to aid the project. If you have private property and you want a fence, you get bumped up in line if you help pay for the fence.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 15:03

I am far from a lock step Republican, just very much anti loopy left wing.

nerveclinic
ID: 105222
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 15:09

Jag People illegally jumping the border is not an immigration process. If you have a better idea than a fence, well, let's hear it. If you all you do poo poo ideas on how to secure the border with no rational solution yourself, you are just part of the problem.

OK let's think about this a minute. We had 6 years in this country with a Repub Prez and a Repub majority in the house and senate.

What did they do to combat illegal immigration...nothing.

Why?

Because Repubs have a constituency of small and medium business owners who are using this cheap labor to succeed...I know, I worked for one. (Enough said about him and he's not in business at the moment anyway)

It's the dirty secret Jag. Cheap labor has been good for small and medium businesses in certain parts of the country.

Why did the Repub majority do nada for 6 years when they had the chance???

They could have passed any law they wanted...but they didn't.

I'm not arguing there is "no problem" I'm just asking why didn't the Republicans do anything when they had the chance?

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 15:22

Mith, your idea is the worse of all, it hurts the economy, creates more crime and damages generations to come.

Well the way I see it, if you erect a wall and start deporting people en masse, businesses that depend on illegals for labor will suffer exactly the same as if you go after them for breaking the law in the first place. I fail to see how the impact on the economy is any different. Except of course that you don't have to hit up taxpayers to pay for a wall strong enough to withstand a minor seige and something like 700 miles long. You'll also never have to deal with the humanitarian crisis on the border that will occur when a large seige attempt is made and people on both sides start getting shot.

Further, I'm pretty sure you only addressed half of my post. The other side of this - something I rarely hear the right talk about - is that those workers are important to our economy. The right always seems to acknowledge this to an extent by agreeing that businesses will be hurt with no cheap labor readily available - but are always also quick to claim that these every illegal working in the US is taking a job away from an American. You can't have it both ways. Businesses do need the cheap labor, and the reason they do is that for the most part illegals work at jobs that Americans will not fill.

So the key to making this work is to make it easier for these people to come here and work on the books. Businesses need them, our economy needs them to be here, so why do we make it so hard for them to get here that they sneak in? Once you give businesses the ability to hire cheap foreign labor without breaking the law, you clamp down hard on any that continue employing illegals (they'll have no excuse) and there'll be little need for this absurd wall.

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 15:30

why didn't the Republicans do anything when they had the chance?

Low unemployment and Wall Street's obsession with growth.

But the dynamics are changing. The housing industry, heavily infiltrated with illegal workers, is crashing. Those workers will not be absorbed into other parts of the economy, and you'll find massive outrage from legal US workers if they're out of work and illegals are retained.
Ironically,
the Mexican housing market is booming, so we may actually see illegal workers going the other way.

In the long term, thriving economies in Latin America, especially Mexico, is the best solution for cross-border employment situations. The scary thing about the possibility of a Dem White House/Congress is massive new welfare and entitlement programs for newly unemployed illegals.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 16:51

Mith, your plan still ignores the criminal element crossing over to evade justice.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 17:12

the criminal element crossing over to evade justice

People are coming across exclusively for this reason in numbers sufficient to warrant a massive and expensive wall to stop it? I'm honestly not aware of this phenomenon. Please enlighten me.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 17:38

Crime in Mexico is staggering, I have a friend in Mexico City right now and he can't take a taxi. Murders are teaming up with cab drivers and forcing their riders to withdraw all their money from ATMs and then killing them. There are reports of illegal aliens committing heinous crimes daily. The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks, which will lead to staggering upswing in crime. You can argue each point on why we need to build a fence, but when you combine all the reasons, the evidence is clear we need it.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 17:44

The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks, which will lead to staggering upswing in crime.

what specifically, is your evidence for this? (Other than a racist premise that is?)

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 17:48

Sarge, I assumed most already knew the higher percentage rate of felons coming from singled family homes, but since your only political knowledge is the bastardize version you read here I will look up the stats for you.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 17:58

But Jag, you didnt cite "single family homes". YOU, cited specifically, single immigrants. What is your statistical evidance to support the contention that single hispanic mothers, produce more felons per 1,000 than do single American citizens?

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:06

The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks, which will lead to staggering upswing in crime.

That sentence there btw, simply reeks of racism. Its as if you're saying, "geez, you thought the blacks were bad? The hispnaics are even WORSE!" Now, you may or may not have intended it that wya, but I dont honestly see any other way of interpreting that statement. I'd suggest, that until you embrace the notion that you just might be a racist SOB, you're not going to make much headway in convincing people to join your cause. (With the possible exception of white-supremacists and kkk members.)

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:13

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Marriage is the foundation of a successful
society.
(2) Marriage is an essential institution of a
successful society which promotes the interests of
children.
(3) Promotion of responsible fatherhood and
motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and
the well-being of children.
(4) In 1992, only 54 percent of single-parent
families with children had a child support order
established and, of that 54 percent, only about one-
half received the full amount due. Of the cases
enforced through the public child support enforcement
system, only 18 percent of the caseload has a
collection.
(5) The number of individuals receiving aid to
families with dependent children (in this section
referred to as ``AFDC'') has more than tripled since
1965. More than two-thirds of these recipients are
children. Eighty-nine percent of children receiving
AFDC benefits now live in homes in which no father is
present.
(A)(i) The average monthly number of
children receiving AFDC benefits--
(I) was 3,300,000 in 1965;
(II) was 6,200,000 in 1970;
(III) was 7,400,000 in 1980; and
(IV) was 9,300,000 in 1992.
(ii) While the number of children receiving
AFDC benefits increased nearly threefold
between 1965 and 1992, the total number of
children in the United States aged 0 to 18 has
declined by 5.5 percent.
(B) The Department of Health and Human
Services has estimated that 12,000,000 children
will receive AFDC benefits within 10 years.
(C) The increase in the number of children
receiving public assistance is closely related
to the increase in births to unmarried women.
Between 1970 and 1991, the percentage of live
births to unmarried women increased nearly
threefold, from 10.7 percent to 29.5 percent.
(6) The increase of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
births is well documented as follows:
(A) It is estimated that the rate of
nonmarital teen pregnancy rose 23 percent from
54 pregnancies per 1,000 unmarried teenagers in
1976 to 66.7 pregnancies in 1991. The overall
rate of nonmarital pregnancy rose 14 percent
from 90.8 pregnancies per 1,000 unmarried women
in 1980 to 103 in both 1991 and 1992. In
contrast, the overall pregnancy rate for
married couples decreased 7.3 percent between
1980 and 1991, from 126.9 pregnancies per 1,000
married women in 1980 to 117.6 pregnancies in
1991.
(B) The total of all out-of-wedlock births
between 1970 and 1991 has risen from 10.7
percent to 29.5 percent and if the current
trend continues, 50 percent of all births by
the year 2015 will be out-of-wedlock.
(7) The negative consequences of an out-of-wedlock
birth on the mother, the child, the family, and society
are well documented as follows:
(A) Young women 17 and under who give birth
outside of marriage are more likely to go on
public assistance and to spend more years on
welfare once enrolled. These combined effects
of ``younger and longer'' increase total AFDC
costs per household by 25 percent to 30 percent
for 17-year olds.
(B) Children born out-of-wedlock have a
substantially higher risk of being born at a
very low or moderately low birth weight.
(C) Children born out-of-wedlock are more
likely to experience low verbal cognitive
attainment, as well as more child abuse, and
neglect.
(D) Children born out-of-wedlock were more
likely to have lower cognitive scores, lower
educational aspirations, and a greater
likelihood of becoming teenage parents
themselves.
(E) Being born out-of-wedlock significantly
reduces the chances of the child growing up to
have an intact marriage.
(F) Children born out-of-wedlock are 3
times more likely to be on welfare when they
grow up.
(8) Currently 35 percent of children in single-
parent homes were born out-of-wedlock, nearly the same
percentage as that of children in single-parent homes
whose parents are divorced (37 percent). While many
parents find themselves, through divorce or tragic
circumstances beyond their control, facing the
difficult task of raising children alone, nevertheless,
the negative consequences of raising children in
single-parent homes are well documented as follows:
(A) Only 9 percent of married-couple
families with children under 18 years of age
have income below the national poverty level.
In contrast, 46 percent of female-headed
households with children under 18 years of age
are below the national poverty level.
(B) Among single-parent families, nearly
\1/2\ of the mothers who never married received
AFDC while only \1/5\ of divorced mothers
received AFDC.
(C) Children born into families receiving
welfare assistance are 3 times more likely to
be on welfare when they reach adulthood than
children not born into families receiving
welfare.
(D) Mothers under 20 years of age are at
the greatest risk of bearing low-birth-weight
babies.
(E) The younger the single parent mother,
the less likely she is to finish high school.
(F) Young women who have children before
finishing high school are more likely to
receive welfare assistance for a longer period
of time.
(G) Between 1985 and 1990, the public cost
of births to teenage mothers under the aid to
families with dependent children program, the
food stamp program, and the medicaid program
has been estimated at $120,000,000,000.
(H) The absence of a father in the life of
a child has a negative effect on school
performance and peer adjustment.
(I) Children of teenage single parents have
lower cognitive scores, lower educational
aspirations, and a greater likelihood of
becoming teenage parents themselves.
(J) Children of single-parent homes are 3
times more likely to fail and repeat a year in
grade school than are children from intact 2-
parent families.
(K) Children from single-parent homes are
almost 4 times more likely to be expelled or
suspended from school.
(L) Neighborhoods with larger percentages
of youth aged 12 through 20 and areas with
higher percentages of single-parent households
have higher rates of violent crime.
(M) Of those youth held for criminal
offenses within the State juvenile justice
system, only 29.8 percent lived primarily in a
home with both parents. In contrast to these
incarcerated youth, 73.9 percent of the
62,800,000 children in the Nation's resident
population were living with both parents.
(9) Therefore, in light of this demonstration of
the crisis in our Nation, it is the sense of the
Congress that prevention of out-of-wedlock pregnancy
and reduction in out-of-wedlock birth are very
important Government interests and the policycontained
in part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (as amended by section
103 of this Act) is intended to address the crisis.

That was from a Congressional document. Read the last few paragraphs.

My exact words
"The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks, which will lead to staggering upswing in crime."
I was obviously talking about unwed births leading to an upswing in crime, but don't let a little fact interfere with your favorite game of throwing out the racism word.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:14

Those damn congressional racists.

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:22

The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks

Where is this "fact" presented? Perhaps you should have put that in bold, because I missed it.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 18:39

I am sure you guys will rip this article instead of paying attention to it.

After conducting a 12 month in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders for the time period of January 1999 through April 2006 , it is clear that the U.S. public faces a dangerous threat from sex predators who cross the U.S. borders illegally.

There were 1500 cases analyzed in depth. They included: serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides, and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants. Police reports, public records, interviews with police, and media accounts were all included. Offenders were located in 36 states, but it is clear, that the most of the offenders were located in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California was number one, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.

Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.

This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.

Victims:
Of the 1500 cases reviewed, 525 (35%) were child molestations, 358 (24%) were rapes, and 617 (41%) were sexual homicides and serial murders. Of the child molestations, 47% of the victims were Hispanic, 36% were Caucasian, 8% were Asian, 6% were African American, and 3% were other nationalities. In most instances, the offenders were familiar with their victims. In fact, 82% of the victims were known to their attackers. The other 18% were molested by strangers. In those instances, the illegal immigrants typically gained access to the victims after having worked as a day laborer at or near the victims’ homes. Victims ranged in age from 1 year old to 13 years old, with the average age being 6.

In rape cases, the offenders were less likely to know their victims. Only 64% of the victims knew their attackers. Furthermore, rape victims proved to be more diverse than child molestation victims. Hispanic and Caucasian victims were identical at 35% each.

The next most likely victims were African American women, and other nationalities comprised the remainder. These women suffered brutal attacks. Commonly, a weapon was used to control the victims. These weapons were most often sharp instruments. And the victims were beaten during the rapes over 70% of the time. Offenders engaged in sodomy in 67% of the attacks, and gang rape took place in .007% of the cases. Rape victims ranged in age from 16-79 and averaged age 23.

Serial rapists accounted for 3% of all illegal immigrant rapists. Each serial rapist averaged 5 victims, with the number of victims ranging from 2 to 11. Two serial rapists were confirmed HIV positive, and another offender had a venereal disease.

The murders were the worst of the sex crimes and were especially vicious. The most common method was for an offender to break into a residence and ambush his victims. Not only were victims raped, but some (6%) were mutilated. The crime scenes were very bloody, expressing intense, angry perpetrator personalities. Specifically, most victims were blitzed, rendered incapable of fighting back, and then raped and murdered. The most common method of killing was bludgeoning, followed by stabbing. Caucasians were more likely to become victims of sexual homicide committed by illegal immigrants. Hispanics were second, and African Americans were third. Victims of sexual homicides averaged age 42. However, victims ranged in age from 16-81.

Serial killers accounted for .005% of the sex crimes. The serial killers averaged 9 victims per offender. Victim choice centered on victims the offenders did not know. Each serial killer targeted men and women, but females were higher, making up 73%. Illegal immigrant serial killers were more likely to strike in the West and the Southern United States.

Victim socioeconomic status changed for each type of crime. Those who fell victim to child molestation tended to be from a lower socioeconomic status than those who were raped and those who were raped and murdered. In fact, 57% of those rape/murdered were from the upper middle class.

There was an especially disturbing finding that in 22% of all sex crimes committed by illegal immigrants, victims with physical and mental disabilities were targeted. These disabled victims were each under age 18. In those cases, the perpetrators knew their victims.

Offenders:
The average age of illegal immigrants who were sex offenders was 27, but they ranged in age from 16-69. Child molesters tended to be older, averaging age 32. The average age of rapists was 26, and murderers averaged age 28. There is a trend that these offenders are becoming younger. For example, in 2006, the average age of sex offender illegal immigrants was 20. The highest number came from Mexico. El Salvador was the original home to the next highest number of sexual offenders. Other countries of origin included: Brazil, China, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico*, Russia, and Vietnam.

They averaged 4 victims per offender. Nearly 63% had been deported on another offense prior to the sex crime. There was an average of 3 years of committing crimes such as DUI, assaults, or drug related offenses prior to being apprehended for a sexual offense.

Alcohol and drug use seemingly played a large role in these crimes. In fact, 81% of offenders were drinking or using drugs prior to offending. Rapists and killers were more likely to use alcohol and drugs consistently than child molesters.

Offenders had the use of a vehicle in 78% of the cases. However, the vehicles were only owned by those offenders 54% of the time. In the other instances, the offenders either borrowed or stole the vehicle.

Many offenders were unkempt in appearance and worked with their hands. They were transient in that they went where work took them. Therefore, only 25% were stable within a community. Further, in 31% of the crimes, the offenders entered into the communities where they offended within 2 months of the commission of their sex offenses. However, many, 79%, had been in the U.S. for more than one year before being arrested for a sex crime, and they were typically known to the Criminal Justice system for prior, less serious offenses before they molested, raped, or murdered.

There was a trend to be single while offending, as only 23% were married at the time of their crimes. Most were known to date quite a bit and have derogatory views of females. Domestic violence was common as well, as nearly half of those with spouses or significant others had a history of domestic abuse.

Nearly 35% were considered religious and even more, 59% had been raised in a religious home. Their work consisted of manual labor in industries such as agriculture, construction, restaurant, and tourism. Residences were rented and usually shared with several other illegal immigrants. Many were partially bi-lingual with a preference for their native languages.

Education levels were typically low. Only 22% had graduated high school. As such, there was a pattern of irresponsible, impulsive behavior in offender backgrounds. Solutions to their problems entailed moving, i.e. running away. Most simply ran to the southern U.S. border after being connected with their sex offenses.

Conclusions:
Illegal immigrants who commit sex crimes first cross the U.S. border illegally. Then they gradually commit worse crimes and are continually released back into society or deported. Those who were deported simply returned illegally again. Only 2% of the offenders in this study has no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally. There is a clear pattern of criminal escalation. From misdemeanors such as assault or DUI, to drug offenses, illegal immigrants who commit sex crimes break U.S. laws repeatedly. They are highly mobile, work in low skilled jobs with their hands, use drugs and alcohol, are generally promiscuous, have little family stability, and choose victims who are easy to attack. Their attacks are particularly brutal, and they use a hands-on method of controlling and/or killing their victims.

Note: Nearly 30% of the victims were illegal immigrants themselves.The remainder were U.S. citizens.

*One offender came from Puerto Rico. He had entered PR illegally from DR and then came to the mainland. He was charged with child molestation.

link

I am sure you believe protecting your left-wing beliefs is more important than protecting the children from sexual molestation.

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 19:53

No Jag, what you said was;

Crime in Mexico is staggering, I have a friend in Mexico City right now and he can't take a taxi. Murders are teaming up with cab drivers and forcing their riders to withdraw all their money from ATMs and then killing them. There are reports of illegal aliens committing heinous crimes daily. The percentage of unwed illegals giving birth is higher than with blacks, which will lead to staggering upswing in crime. You can argue each point on why we need to build a fence, but when you combine all the reasons, the evidence is clear we need it.

The ONLY possible inference here, is that you are speaking directly to Hispanics. The ONLY call you make for border security, is along the Southern border, despite the fact that the 9/11 terrorists came through our Northern border. The inference then becomes, not one of security, but one of "keep those damn spics out".

So now Jag, where is your evidance that unwewd Hispanic mothers are more likely to produce felons, than are unwed mothers of ANY other national heritage?

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 19:59

from your link in post 74:

Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United St.

Extrapolation I think, can be a dangerous, misleading two-edged sword. Some statistics I've read in the past, indicate that 1 in 4 children has been the victim of "molestation". If that ais true, then we have a HUGE number of US males, much larger than 2% of the population; who are guilty of those crimes. (Unless those 2% committing the crimes, manage to accost 6% ea, of the child population. Do the math...I doubt that such is the case.)

As I have said before, I'm not a statistician, but I think that article has more holes in it, than the collander in my kitchen cupboard.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 20:00

Jag

You're kind of all over the place here so lets go back to the question that you were asked - I asked you to show me that criminals were crossing the border to evade justice. I have trouble accepting what you've since presented as evidence of that phenomenon because I have trouble with the idea that wanted Mexican criminals would cross into the US (where law enforcement is much more effective) only to commit crimes here. Why would someone come to the United States just to commit sex crimes? Your article doesn't make any case for this at all. Did I miss it? All your article claims is that people who are illegal immigrants have a greater tendency to also be criminals. That doesn't sound like an unnatural correlation to me and I can't think of a reason to doubt it.

But you and I already agree that we'd be better off with fewer illegal immigrants here. The disagreement is about the best method to deal with it. Yours is to try to dam the river and pray it holds. Mine is to just turn off the valve.

So to recap, you argued that a wall is better than making it easier for people to legally work here while chasing down lawbreaking employers - because my way is bad for the economy. I countered that the wall has the same impact on the businesses as my method while also pinning the huge burden of erecting a monstrous wall on the backs of the taxpayers. You have since not responded any further to the economic side of the issue.

Your next post instead was a claim that I have ignored the criminal element crossing over to evade justice, and I asked you to tell me about this. But after reading two very long posts I haven't seen anything about illegals sneaking into the US for the purpose of evading justice.

Summing up now, unless you have anything else to show me, I'll remain of the opinion that keeping American employers in line will deny the overwhelming majority of Latin American criminals a motive to come here illegally, and that the way to make this a possibility is to simple make it easier for hard working people to come here and accept legal employment.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 20:45

Mith, if we wall out illegal immigrants we can still allow visa and work permits and have control over who is coming over here. I suggested a way to erect the wall with assistance from private and state funding. Even if we have just a partial wall, it will be easier to monitor the unprotected areas.

I have trouble with the idea that wanted Mexican criminals would cross into the US (where law enforcement is much more effective) only to commit crimes here. Why would someone come to the United States just to commit sex crimes?

I never said they come across just to commit crimes, rather they are attempting to elude law enforcement in Mexico. Saying law enforcement is more effective here is a joke, when you consider many illegals are simply deported and many return later easily cross the border. According to the report close to a 100 sex offenders are crossing daily, I am curious to what number is needed before the Left feels enough is enough. Here ia a particularly heinous gang rape.

rape

Mith, your idea is the absolutely insane. What will happen to all these unemployed illegals? I doubt they will return to Mexico, more likely they will resort to crime and depend more on social programs. In one swoop, you discovered a way to help destroy the economy, create an entire society of impoverish, burden our social and healthcare system and increase crime and gang violence to an almost unmanagable degree.

Sarge, all you got in your arsenal is throwing out the word racism. When we have 12,000,000 Canadians stealing job, committing violent crimes, burdening our social and healthcare systems and forming gangs, I will then address that issue. Excuse me if I don't currently fear the Ottawa Bloods invading my neighborhood.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 20:57

One more thing Mith, all illegal immigrants are criminals. When they cross the border ILLEGALLY they are breaking the law.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 21:20

Saying law enforcement is more effective here is a joke, when you consider many illegals are simply deported and many return later easily cross the border.

How many is that? Are you saying that when we aprehend wanted Mexican criminals there is no extradition process?

Mith, your idea is the absolutely insane. What will happen to all these unemployed illegals? I doubt they will return to Mexico, more likely they will resort to crime and depend more on social programs.

Yes, yes everything I say is either a joke or insane. You call my approach crazy for it's failure to deal with illegals who are here, presuambly because you feel enforcing the law will create criminals out of otherwise law abiding illegals because they are unemployed?

There are two problems with this.

First, your wall creates precisely the same situation for illegals who are here; wall goes up, businesses that depend on cheap labor struggle, jobs dry up for illegals. You wind up with exactly the same problem that you assert on my approach, except the wall that keeps the ones on the outside out might make it harder for any of the ones already here to safely leave if they want to. If my offering is insane for ignoring that issue, then yours is equally insane because exactly the same thing happens. The wall doesn't make the go home.

Second, making it possible for buisinesses to legally employ foreign labor on the books will give illegals an incentive to make themselves legal. They'll see their countrymen employed and providing for their families and living out in the open with no fear of the government and what do you think they're going to do? Steal a TV? More likely, they're going to put themselves on a path to legal employment in the US. If we're smart, we'll make it as easy as reasonably possible.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 21:31

Glad to see you don't deny that your plan would destroy the economy, create an entire society of impoverish, burden our social and healthcare system and increase crime and gang violence to an almost unmanagable degree.

I am really worried about the mass exodus of illegals fleeing the U.S. being blocked by the wall. I am pretty sure we can offer a free one way ticket out.

If we get to the point where we have 100% employment we can increase work permits.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sat, Feb 02, 2008, 23:23

I fail to see how erecting a wall changes any of that.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 00:34

The first step is to close the border. After that, I would have to check the McCain plan and others. I know there is no perfect answer, but for the reasons I mentioned, you can't put 12 million people out of work, nor can you kick 12 million people out of the country.

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 01:46

The first step is to close the border.

Explain close the border. Obviously you don't mean it literally. Consider the ramifications of closing the border. Perhaps you mean strengthen border security.

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 02:52

I mean build a fence.

CanadianHack
ID: 21937272
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 07:16

Sarge: The ONLY call you make for border security, is along the Southern border, despite the fact that the 9/11 terrorists came through our Northern border.

This is not true. Everyone of the 9/11 trerrorists entered the US on international plane flights. They all were permitted to enter the US by the customs authorities on those flights. Many overstayed their visas once they arrived. None crossed the border from Canada. This was an early claim by the Bush administration probably to put some pressure on Canada - but it turned out not to be true (which makes it not unlike most claims made by the Bush administration)

No wall is going to keep people from coming into the US on airplanes. The stupid build a fence idea doesn't even begin to address this problem - if it was the real problem.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:03

Sarge: OK then, let's build walls on both borders. Happy?

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:12

As Jag writes his plan looks more and more like under-the-table amnesty for illegals. He claims taking jobs away from illegal aliens will cripple the economy with the double whammy of struggling businesses that can no longer rely on cheap labor and creating "entire society of impoverish, burden our social and healthcare system and increase crime and gang violence to an almost unmanagable degree."

So his answer is to allow these illegals to keep working - and to maintain their status as illegals, while we try to prevent any more from getting in.

It doesn't appear that he's given this topic nearly as much thought as he'd like others to think. As far as I can tell, he just wants a wall, dammit.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:21

Mith: You wind up with exactly the same problem that you assert on my approach, except the wall that keeps the ones on the outside out might make it harder for any of the ones already here to safely leave if they want to.

Really? We won't let people leave? Oh I don't know about that...

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:29

You and Jag have hung on that sentence as if it is the crux of my argument. It's not, but it's not invalid either.

Illegals aren't likely to turn themselves in, even for the purpose of going back home.

How about commenting on the overall positions rather than focusing on a minor side note which was qualified with the word might, anyway. If that's all you've got to counter my arguments here than you haven't got much.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:43

You and Jag have hung on that sentence as if it is the crux of my argument. It's not, but it's not invalid either.

So are you retracting that belief or are you in limbo now?

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 09:45

I'm sticking with everything I've said on that particular issue. Do you have any comments on the more fundamental parts of this discussion?

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 13:33

I addressed the fundamental part of your arguement and gave reasons why it is the worse idea since clackers.

I haven't read the McCain plan in awhile, but it was close to what I would like to see implemented, however, closing the border is the first priority.

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:03

methinks, Box is too busy looking for a "gotcha", to pay any mind to what was actually said.

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 14:05

No, Box is too busy shaking his head at Mith's idiotic immigration idea. Not surprisingly you're here to comfort your buddy Mith and dodging a question at the same time.

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 16:38

I addressed the fundamental part of your arguement and gave reasons why it is the worse idea since clackers.

No, you really haven't. The fundamental points are to: (1) try to allow the benefits of the current arrangement to continue while dealing with (2) the problems of having illegals among us and (3) a growing number of illegals continuing to come in.

I accomplish #1 by making it easier for foreigners to work here legally. You've repeatedly called me insane and a joke and poor Boxman can't stop shaking his head but no one has stated why this is a bad idea. I thought it was bad to poo poo on ideas with no reason for doing so. All you've said on the issue is this: "If we get to the point where we have 100% employment we can increase work permits.". But I'll continue to contend as I did back in post 62 (which was before you wrote that) that for the most part illegals work jobs that Americans will not fill.

Which leads us to #2. You seem to acknowledge this (that Americans won't fill most of these jobs) when you talk about how bad it will be for businesses and the economy if we enforce laws against them employing illegals. Quite obviously, if you argue that businesses are hurt by their inability to hire illegals, you must acknowledge that there is no alternate affordable labor force waiting in line for those jobs.

I fail to see why a system of under the table amnesty for these criminals (that's your word - see post 80) is better than figuring out how many jobs we need foreigners to fill and simply issuing enough work permits to fill those jobs and then going after employers who continue to hire foreigners off the books.

On issue number 3, you've stated that eliminating the work incentive is insufficient to stem the tide of illegals entering America because many of them cross the border to evade law enforcement in their home countries. I asked for evidence of this phenomenon and you failed to provide any, offering instead evidence that many illegals are also criminals (beyond their immigrant status). But not evidence that they (be they criminal or non-criminal) come here for any reason other than a paycheck. You then aluded to some issue about wanted Mexican criminals being simply deported, with no extradition or other criminal law enforcement process taking place. I asked for evidence of this but you never acknowledged my request and seem to have dropped it. I'll state again that in my opinion cutting off the supply of jobs to illegals is far superior to erecting a wall.

Here are my reasons:
1. Cost to taxpayers (and/or homeowners) for the structure and maintainence.
2. Latin Americans will still have a huge incentive to come here, meaning they will increasingly search for ways over, under and through a fence.
3. It creates an escalation of hostility that will eventually and inevitably result in seiges, standoffs and people getting killed (sometimes I get the feeling that escalation is exactly what some on the right want - a chance to see American border agents "kicking ass" or some nonsense).
4. A border wall is a symbolic gesture that suggests the USA has abandoned one of its most basic principles.

Further, and this is something else you've avoided - every reason you've used to dismiss me is just as much or even more a problem with your proposals than it is mine. You have no mechanism for getting illegals to leave, despite creating the two longest posts in this thread to tell us what filthy terrible criminals they are. While I give them an incentive to get out and try to get back in through the front door.

At this point I don't think you even know what your arguments are any more. You call people names for failing to see what horrible people illegals are but then call other people names when they offer suggestions to try to get them to leave.

Boldwin
ID: 1055190
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 17:59

you must acknowledge that there is no alternate affordable labor force waiting in line for those jobs.

Were you aware that there are poor people in America? The kind liberals used to claim they cared about?

Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 18:10

Businesses do need the cheap labor, and the reason they do is that for the most part illegals work at jobs that Americans will not fill.

They won't?

Pew Hispanic Center Study

According to a new survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, illegals make up 24 percent of workers in agriculture, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction, and 12 percent in food production. So 86 percent of construction workers, for instance, are either legal immigrants or Americans, despite the fact that this is one of the alleged categories of untouchable jobs.

100

Jag
ID: 360261522
Sun, Feb 03, 2008, 21:13

Mith, first, I didn't call you a name, that style belongs to Sarge. I said your idea was insane, but so is trying to kick out 12 million people. Both of these plans are impossible to implement. I am for a revised McCain/Kennedy bill with no special treatment for the illegals.

You keep harping on a link to prove some illegals come here to avoid Mexican law. What if I said some Americans go to Mexico to avoid American justice, would I need a link for that? I doubt Mexicans fleeing justice stop to fill out a poll.

I don't need a link and can speak from experience that cheap Mexican labor has destroyed wages in the construction business. I don't hire illegals, because mi espanol es muy mal and I can barely compete with those that do. You may find this racist, but there is no doubt items are more likely to be stolen with a Mexican crew working nearby. It is not because they are Hispanic, rather shows the type that are willing to commit an illegal act to get here.

No one knows the exact number of illegals have criminal tendacies, but I am curious to know what percentage you think is acceptable. How many thieves, rapists and murderers to we need crossing over, before you will agree, that we need to close the border.

101

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 08:34

gonna have to put a blindfold on the Statute of Liberty before you close the border. Oh, and prolly erase the inscription as well. At that point, we can cease electing Presidents and representatives...a single Dictator would most likely suffice.

102

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 09:22

Boldwin and Boxman

I fail to see why you address only me in posts 98 and 99, as Jag apparently holds the same position, even if he stops short of saying so. He not only argues that going after businesses that employ illegals will hurt them but that doing so will "destroy the economy."

I will concede that the construction industry is an exception. Day laborers do in fact take jobs that Americans would otherwise fill. But for the most part that isn't the case in other industries.

That said, citing that illegals make up only 24 or 17 percent of the workforce in one industry or another is not evidence that Americans will work those jobs if you take away the foreign labor force. For example, 85% (or whatever) of restaurant jobs might be held by Americans, but those people are waiters and bartenders and management. Americans are not lined up to wash dishes for a living, which is what illegals mostly do in the restaurant industry.

Further, if Americans are unemployed because illegals take their jobs then how come I keep seeing these local news reports from around the country saying that jobs are going unfilled following crackdowns on illegals?

Jag
I am for a revised McCain/Kennedy bill with no special treatment for the illegals.
Exactly how does McCain/Kennedy differ from what I've said all along? Please explain to me the difference that makes one smart policy and the other cookoo. McCain/Kennedy calls for expanding the number of foreign workers who can legally be employed in the US and cracking down on existing immigration and labor laws. There's nothing I've been saying we should do that isn't in McCain/Kennedy. You'll have to show me why one approach is the smart thing to do while another is idiotic and insane>

You keep harping on a link to prove some illegals come here to avoid Mexican law.

Wrong. I'm asking you for evidence that this happens to a degree that is significant to warrant a monstrous wall across the whole southern border of our country.

No one knows the exact number of illegals have criminal tendacies, but I am curious to know what percentage you think is acceptable. How many thieves, rapists and murderers to we need crossing over, before you will agree, that we need to close the border.

We both have approaches that we think will stem the flow. As was pointed out to you earlier in this thread you really don't mean "close the border". North and South Korea have a closed border. I assume that isn't the type of arrangement you want between the US and Mexico. Anyway, of the two of us I'm the only one who has explicitly endorsed attempting to get illegals who are already here - out in favor of legal foreign workers. Its funny to me how in one sentence illegals are murderors and rapists and thieves who steal your toools after they steal your job. But in the next sentence it is insane of me to want to remove these people from society.

103

Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 11:48

Mith, the problem with your idea is it doesn't get rid of them, it just unemploys them, creating a huge improvished class. I am all for kicking out every illegal and replacing with documented workers, but it ain't gonna happen, so why even discuss it.

Sarge, your comments would make a for nice bumper sticker, but crap for a immigration policy.

104

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 11:52

105

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 12:29

Jag #84
I would have to check the McCain plan

A good place to start might be McCain's Hispanic outreach director, Juan Hernandez.

In an appearance on ABC's Nightline in 2001, Hernandez said, referring to Mexican immigrants in the U.S., "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'"

Hernandez told the Associated Press the same year, "I never knew the border as a limitation. I'd be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries."

Last August, Hernandez published a book entitled "The New American Pioneers: Why Are We Afraid of Mexican Immigrants?" in which he argued Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, were at the forefront of establishing a new North American market combining the U.S. with Mexico.

106

Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 12:32

No, but I am realist and there is no other feasible option. Although, I don't want a blanket amnesty, those deserving with no criminal record have to stay, as you can't deport 12 million people, it is not only logisitically impossible, it would be economic suicide.

107

Jag
ID: 360261522
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:03

McCain said his first priority would be to close the border and I believe (or hope) he is sincere.

108

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:12

Mith: Further, if Americans are unemployed because illegals take their jobs then how come I keep seeing these local news reports from around the country saying that jobs are going unfilled following crackdowns on illegals?

Because that article sites a Rapture-like effect where the feds swoop in and raid which will cause an immediate short term labor shortage.

This article does more complaining about the higher costs of food as a result as opposed to addressing the problem.

Ever see the TV show Dirty Jobs on Discovery Channel? Americans will do some pretty disgusting s#it for a living. Take the illegals out of the equation long term and the jobs will get filled or business will innovate its way out of the problem.

109

Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:16

Ever see the TV show Dirty Jobs on Discovery Channel? Americans will do some pretty disgusting s#it for a living.

if they are paid well.

the jobs the "illegals" do are generally speaking, not well-paying.

110

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:20

the jobs the "illegals" do are generally speaking, not well-paying.

Allow me to repeat myself, Take the illegals out of the equation long term and the jobs will get filled or business will innovate its way out of the problem.

111

Tree
ID: 3533298
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:51

Take the illegals out of the equation long term and the jobs will get filled or business will innovate its way out of the problem.

and i said that the jobs won't get filled.

but i'm willing to listen. tell me how business will innovate its way out of a problem. tell me how business will hang sheet rock or paint houses or dig ditches and so forth for below minimum wage.

i'm interested to hear this.

112

Boxman
ID: 337352111
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 13:54

but i'm willing to listen. tell me how business will innovate its way out of a problem. tell me how business will hang sheet rock or paint houses or dig ditches and so forth for below minimum wage.

They won't. They'll have to pay more per worker. Yet maybe they innovate processes and equipment such that not as many workers are needed.

113

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 14:12

Take the illegals out of the equation long term and the jobs will get filled or business will innovate its way out of the problem.

Of course I totally agree with this. If it weren't for Boxman being so consumed animosity toward me I'm pretty sure he'd realize how much closer I am with him on this subject than Jag is.

114

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 14:14

Mith: So to be clear, you are pro-amnesty, correct?

Jag: No, but I am realist and there is no other feasible option.

As far as policy is concerned, you are pro-amnesty.

115

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 14:30

Jag= pro amnesty! Vote Romney ;-)
Interesting discussion. Box and MITH are aligned on this.

Go Giants.

116

sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Mon, Feb 04, 2008, 14:58

They won't. They'll have to pay more per worker. Yet maybe they innovate processes and equipment such that not as many workers are needed.

Well then...why not do that now, and avoid hiring illegals?

117

Jag
ID: 5112883
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 12:00

The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA)

WASHINGTON, DC - Congress is considering sweeping
> legislation that will provide new benefits for many
> Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act
> (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal
> by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack
> any real skills or ambition.
>
> "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the
> competence and drive necessary t o carve out a
> meaningful role for themselves in society," said
> California Senator Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer
> stand by and allow People of Inability to be
> ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation,
> employers will no longer be able to grant special
> favors to a small group of workers, simply because
> they have some idea of what they are doing."
>
> In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority
> Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry
> Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal
> Service, which has a long-standing policy of
> providing opportunity without regard to performance.
> Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack
> any job skills, making this agency the single
> largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability.
>
> Private-sector industries with good records of
> nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail
> sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home
> improvement "warehouse" stores (65%). At the state
> government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles
> also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of
> Inability (63%).
>
> Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than
> 25 million "middle man" positions will be created,
> with important-sounding titles but little real
> responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of
> purpose and performance.
>
> Mandatory non-performance-based raises and
> promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward
> mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.
> The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to
> corporations that promote a significant number of
> Persons of Inability into middle-management
> positions, and gives a tax credit to small and
> medium-size d businesses that agree to hire one
> clueless worker for every two talented hires.
>
> Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to
> make it more difficult to discriminate against the
> Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory
> interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills
> or experience that relate to this job?"
>
> "As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep
> up with people who have something going for them,"
> said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a
> lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan,
> due to her lack of any discernible job skills. "This
> new law should be real good for people like me."
> With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of
> other untalented citizens will finally see a light
> at the end of the tunnel.
>
> Said Senator Dick Durban (D-IL): "As a Senator with
> no ab ilities, I believe the same privileges that
> elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to
> every American with no abilities. It is our duty as
> lawmakers to provide each and every American
> citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with
> some sort of space to take up in this great nation."

118

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 12:08

I applaud Mrs. pelosi's efforts to ensure that George W Bush will have a fair chance at employment after January, 2009.

119

tree on the treo
ID: 40842210
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 12:30

beat me to it. man, that was like tossing softballs...

120

Jag
ID: 5112883
Mon, Feb 11, 2008, 23:20

President Bush and VP Cheney are sitting in a bar.

A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and
Cheney sitting over there?"

The bartender says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a
real honor! What are you guys doing in here?"

Bush says, "We're planning WW III."

The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"

&nbs p; Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims
and one blonde with big tits."

The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits?

Why kill a blonde with big tits?"

Bush turns to Cheney and says, "See, I told you,
no one gives a shit about the 140 million Muslims.

Forum: polPage 3038Subject: The Jag E-mail Joke Thread

Forum: pol
Page 3038
Subject: The Jag E-mail Joke Thread