Domination

[RIJIMMY]

let me make it simple for you Spence, you definitley havent been yourself lately.
1. Economy in tank
2. Tons of taxpayer money for economy
3. Some of that may go to people that are not allowed to work in the US, thus NOT TAXPAYERS
4. Simple, free provision to ensure they $ goes to US citizens only, removed from legislation.

PS - your comment on Newsmax, you more than anyone has quoted asrticels from Huffington Post and I never questioned it. I included the link to the source article.

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

let me make it simple for you Spence, you definitley havent been yourself lately.
1. Economy in tank
2. Tons of taxpayer money for economy
3. Some of that may go to people that are not allowed to work in the US, thus NOT TAXPAYERS
4. Simple, free provision to ensure they $ goes to US citizens only, removed from legislation.

PS - your comment on Newsmax, you more than anyone has quoted asrticels from Huffington Post and I never questioned it. I included the link to the source article.

He is in a tough spot, he is pot committed with BHO. But he ain't alone, I see this trend developing with a lot of my friends who have Hussein on the Brain. They will defend him at all cost. I would bet Spence didn't want to write the post that a burned dvd with 25 movies was a nice gesture for the leader of a visiting superpower and one of our greatest allies. They have so much emotion and hope wrapped up in this guy they just can't seem to muster a disparaging word.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

3. Some of that may go to people that are not allowed to work in the US, thus NOT TAXPAYERS

Yes, assuming employers break the law. So just to be sure, you're standing for redundant legislation that assumes US companies will break the law?

PS - your comment on Newsmax, you more than anyone has quoted asrticels from Huffington Post and I never questioned it. I included the link to the source article.

I can think of only a few asrticels from HP I've quoted over the past several years.

Regarding the source. They're extrapolating backwards to make a policy comment, that NEWSMAX is liberally manipulating into a conclusion. There's a big difference here.

By the same logic these jobs could also go to underaged legal citizens, Martians and the mentally unfit. And Obama has directed it as part of his evil plan...

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, assuming employers break the law. So just to be sure, you're standing for redundant legislation that assumes US companies will break the law?


I can think of only a few asrticels from HP I've quoted over the past several years.

Regarding the source. They're extrapolating backwards to make a policy comment, that NEWSMAX is liberally manipulating into a conclusion. There's a big difference here.

By the same logic these jobs could also go to underaged legal citizens, Martians and the mentally unfit. And Obama has directed it as part of his evil plan...

-spence

Spence,
I feel like I'm watching a pitcher who has lost his fastball and is going out and trying to get batters out by fooling them with curevballs and changeups. You are the political forum version of a junkballer.

You used to be able to put together coherent and researched arguments, but now you just throw out some big words like "asritcels" and "extrapolating" and hope you confuse us.

Conservatives wanting more legislation? Where did you get that from? Is it because the House version of the stimulus bill wanted to verify that workers are legal? What makes that a conservative directive? Is the House full of "conservative" Democrats? By the way, it's not really legislation being added to the bill. It's legislation that's already there that is just not being dropped.

Do you assume that there are US companies breaking the law? Remember a while back the company in New Bedford that was raided and over 300 illegals were carted off? What about all the manufacturing plants in the midwest? I guess if you don't think it's happening, you're probably not very well informed. These people, no matter how good their intentions or how nice of people they are, are hurting the US economy. They use services that taxpayes pay for, while not contributing to those services. They also are working in jobs that could go to legal citizens who are authorized to work in the US.

Do you really feel that this "redundant" provision is going to "burden" businesses? I can't even understand where you can come up with an argument here. It's more of a burden to businesses to pay the fines associated with hiring undocumented workers than to take literally 30seconds to confirm whether an employee is eligible or not.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Spence,
I feel like I'm watching a pitcher who has lost his fastball and is going out and trying to get batters out by fooling them with curevballs and changeups. You are the political forum version of a junkballer.

You used to be able to put together coherent and researched arguments, but now you just throw out some big words like "asritcels" and "extrapolating" and hope you confuse us.

Asritcels was simply making fun of RIJIMMY's spelling.

As for extrapolating, it's not that big of a word and there's always dictionary.com

Conservatives wanting more legislation? Where did you get that from? Is it because the House version of the stimulus bill wanted to verify that workers are legal? What makes that a conservative directive? Is the House full of "conservative" Democrats? By the way, it's not really legislation being added to the bill. It's legislation that's already there that is just not being dropped.

Do you assume that there are US companies breaking the law? Remember a while back the company in New Bedford that was raided and over 300 illegals were carted off? What about all the manufacturing plants in the midwest? I guess if you don't think it's happening, you're probably not very well informed. These people, no matter how good their intentions or how nice of people they are, are hurting the US economy. They use services that taxpayes pay for, while not contributing to those services. They also are working in jobs that could go to legal citizens who are authorized to work in the US.

Do you really feel that this "redundant" provision is going to "burden" businesses? I can't even understand where you can come up with an argument here. It's more of a burden to businesses to pay the fines associated with hiring undocumented workers than to take literally 30seconds to confirm whether an employee is eligible or not.

I'm obviously being sarcastic to make a point that the outrage over this issue is pretty hypocritical, manufactured and downright silly.

It sounds like proper immigration reform is needed, not some measure tagged onto a spending bill where it doesn't belong.

As for your comment on discrimination, certainly some employers will feel pressure to not hire foreign workers if they believe it could cause them to get a second look from Uncle Sam. Not saying it would be a deal breaker, but it's in the mix regardless.

-spence