Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "notbob" > wrote in message
>> I'm so sick of that bullshit mantra politicians have been spouting for the
>> last 10 year, "Illegals do the work Amercans won't". It's a gawdamn lie
>> and
>> I'm here to tell you so.
>>
>> nb
>
> But there is some truth to it. My company has some jobs that are unskilled.
> We pay more than the minimum wage for the state, much higher than Federal
> Minimum. We offer good benefits too. Twenty years ago, most of our workers
> were housewives looking to make a few extra bucks. The work is clean, no
> heavy lifting, not a lot of education required. The next group of workers
> is the HS grad looking for his first job or the burger flipper looking for
> the next step up. Over the years it became more and more difficult to find
> them. Kids that drop out of school want to start at $15 an hour. Most of
> our workers are now immigrants. They are happy to work 8 and sometimes will
> work 16 hour days if we let them. Some have been with us for years. The
> Americans don't usually last more than a few days if they show up at all.
>
>

That's been our experience, Ed. Our best production workers are
older single women who support themselves. We pay more than twice
minimum wage and offer good medical and other benefits. Production jobs
do require handling messy powders and chemicals but the ladies do a
great job and are careful about safety procedures, gloves, respirators,
and clean suits.

Most men we have interviewed aren't interested in performing the
necessary safety procedures required for the job.

gloria p

"Gloria P" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "notbob" > wrote in message
>>> I'm so sick of that bullshit mantra politicians have been spouting for
>>> the
>>> last 10 year, "Illegals do the work Amercans won't". It's a gawdamn lie
>>> and
>>> I'm here to tell you so.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> But there is some truth to it. My company has some jobs that are
>> unskilled. We pay more than the minimum wage for the state, much higher
>> than Federal Minimum. We offer good benefits too. Twenty years ago,
>> most of our workers were housewives looking to make a few extra bucks.
>> The work is clean, no heavy lifting, not a lot of education required.
>> The next group of workers is the HS grad looking for his first job or the
>> burger flipper looking for the next step up. Over the years it became
>> more and more difficult to find them. Kids that drop out of school want
>> to start at $15 an hour. Most of our workers are now immigrants. They
>> are happy to work 8 and sometimes will work 16 hour days if we let them.
>> Some have been with us for years. The Americans don't usually last more
>> than a few days if they show up at all.
>
> That's been our experience, Ed. Our best production workers are
> older single women who support themselves. We pay more than twice minimum
> wage and offer good medical and other benefits. Production jobs do
> require handling messy powders and chemicals but the ladies do a great job
> and are careful about safety procedures, gloves, respirators, and clean
> suits.
>
> Most men we have interviewed aren't interested in performing the necessary
> safety procedures required for the job.
>
> gloria p

Shit, we need salesmen. We have six now, and the top guy makes nine grand a
month. The lowest about five. We have ads all over the place, and can get
no applicants. Everyone wants a job, but no one wants to work.

Steve

On 2009-02-19, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> our workers are now immigrants. They are happy to work 8 and sometimes will
> work 16 hour days if we let them. Some have been with us for years. The
> Americans don't usually last more than a few days if they show up at all.

It gets back to fair compensation. "..will work 16 hour days IF WE LET
THEM"!!!??? Well, aintchyu jes the benevelent one. Lemme ask you this:
just how long after 8 hrs do you start paying time and a half? ...double
time?

If it was up to the bean counters, they would pay straight time for 20 hrs
without a break. Last Summer I worked as a dishwasher. I sat down 2 mins
per hour per 6 hr shift. I'm 60 yrs old and as WASP as they come. Don't
even begin to tell me who and what the working man deserves. I've gone from
digging ditches to wearing suits. I know what the working man deserves.

Grrrrr......

nb

On 2009-02-19, sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:56:15 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>
>>I don't understand how the electorate is dumb enough to keep voting
>>some of these guy back into office.
>
> I gave up trying to understand after Bush2 was re-elected.

Amen, sf. It staggers the imagination. :\

nb

On 2009-02-19, Gloria P > wrote:

> older single women who support themselves. We pay more than twice
> minimum wage.......

Have you tried that with the persons you want to do the "dirty work"?

> Most men we have interviewed aren't interested in performing the
> necessary safety procedures required for the job.

Sounds fishy to me. Why would a "man" refuse to follow procedures that
would ensure his safety while performing a job that provides "twice" minimum
wage plus bennies? Holy crap, half the population of my area would probably
move themselves and their whole family for such a deal.

I oversaw a production environment of huge age and ethnic diversity. I know
who the troublemakers were. The young males may have been more likely to be
unreliable on a day-to-day basis (hangover, etc), but it was the ol' ladies
that were the troublemakers. Not so much as to be a major factor, but don't
rock their boat! My daily nightmare.

nb

On 2009-02-19, SteveB > wrote:

> Shit, we need salesmen. We have six now, and the top guy makes nine grand a
> month. The lowest about five. We have ads all over the place, and can get
> no applicants. Everyone wants a job, but no one wants to work.

Do you pay moving expenses?

nb

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:38:19 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-02-19, sf > wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:56:15 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't understand how the electorate is dumb enough to keep voting
>>>some of these guy back into office.
>>
>> I gave up trying to understand after Bush2 was re-elected.
>
>Amen, sf. It staggers the imagination. :\

How do you think we in Illinois feel after re-electing Blago?

Lou

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:32:27 -0700, "SteveB" >
wrote:

>Shit, we need salesmen. We have six now, and the top guy makes nine grand a
>month. The lowest about five. We have ads all over the place, and can get
>no applicants. Everyone wants a job, but no one wants to work.

What are you selling, plutonium?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:28:48 -0600, Lou Decruss
> wrote:

>How do you think we in Illinois feel after re-electing Blago?

....not to mention Burris!

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-02-19, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> our workers are now immigrants. They are happy to work 8 and sometimes
>> will
>> work 16 hour days if we let them. Some have been with us for years. The
>> Americans don't usually last more than a few days if they show up at all.
>
> It gets back to fair compensation. "..will work 16 hour days IF WE LET
> THEM"!!!??? Well, aintchyu jes the benevelent one. Lemme ask you this:
> just how long after 8 hrs do you start paying time and a half? ...double
> time?
>

Yes, we are benevolent. We are also concerned about safety and after a
couple of 16 hour days, people get tired and careless. We pay OT after 40
hours. DT on Sunday or holidays, but we don't work then. As for paying
OT after 8 hours, that has proven over the years not to work so well.
People work maybe 45 hours and t hen take off on Friday, or t hey don't show
up on Monday and still want to get ther time in. Our work is such that a
packer is needed whent he machine rungs. If one works on first shift, thent
he second shift operatore comes in there is no more wok (thus on OT) fo rhte
first shift person. If someone call in or does not show up, we do allows a
first shift person to pull a double. OT is really cheap. We pay good
benefits and th eyh are based on 40 hours so even though you are paying
higher wages, you are not paying more for health care.


> If it was up to the bean counters, they would pay straight time for 20 hrs
> without a break.

Bullshit. That is a generalization that is just plain wrong. Sure, some
would but most employers are well aware that people work best whenthey get
breaks, lunch times, etc. Most companies threat employees fairly, not like
1920.


Last Summer I worked as a dishwasher. I sat down 2 mins
> per hour per 6 hr shift. I'm 60 yrs old and as WASP as they come. Don't
> even begin to tell me who and what the working man deserves. I've gone
> from
> digging ditches to wearing suits. I know what the working man deserves.
>
> Grrrrr......
>
> nb

Sorry you've been screwed. Let me also mention that right now our business
is slow. We've only had production two days a week since January 1. That
means 3 days the plant is idle. You may want to know that not one employees
has not been given the opportunity to work 40 hours. It would be much
cheaper just to lay them off, but no on has lost a penny in wages. Don't
talk to me sarcastically about benevolence. Oh, we also got profit sharing
last Friday based on 2008. Everyone, including the cleaning lady that works
6 hours a week got a share.

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-02-19, Gloria P > wrote:
>
>> older single women who support themselves. We pay more than twice
>> minimum wage.......
>
> Have you tried that with the persons you want to do the "dirty work"?
>
>> Most men we have interviewed aren't interested in performing the
>> necessary safety procedures required for the job.
>
> Sounds fishy to me. Why would a "man" refuse to follow procedures that
> would ensure his safety while performing a job that provides "twice" minimum
> wage plus bennies? Holy crap, half the population of my area would probably
> move themselves and their whole family for such a deal.
>

People can be strange. My husband once worked for a company where the
production area had high levels of lead. The workers were provided with
a lot of protective equipment, they were forbidden from eating or
smoking in the production area and reminded to wash their hands well
before taking a smoking break or eating in the lunch room. They were
tested frequently for blood lead levels and treated if the levels were
high. Very few ever required treatment.

A couple of guys consistently walked outdoors to smoke without taking
off their gloves and masks. They brought food into the production area.
When they were reminded, the scoffed and got hostile. Both of them
tested high for lead quite often and were required to take time off and
medicate to reduce blood lead. Other workers who followed safety
procedures tested fine. The only conclusion we could come to was that
they guys wanted to elevate their lead levels so they could claim
workmen's comp and/or sue the company for damages. Both were fired
after their behavior and the constant "reminders" from their supervisors
were documented. Neither could find an attorney willing to fight for
them under the circumstances.

gloria p

> notbob wrote:

>>
>> Sounds fishy to me. Why would a "man" refuse to follow procedures that
>> would ensure his safety while performing a job that provides "twice"
>> minimum
>> wage plus bennies?


Look at people wearing seatbelts.Men are less likely to wear them than
woman. Men just take more risks than woman.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:30:57 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2009-02-18, Gregory Morrow > wrote:
>
>> Yep, if most Americans won't do "stoop" labor like pick crops or prep food
>> in restaurants or whatever.... I can't see any "WPA" - type program involving
>> lotsa manual labor succeeding. We're waaay beyond the 30's era of work
>> camps and ditch - digging brigades and such...
>
> Funny, I've done prep, worked as both a janitor and ditch digger and would
> dod it again.
>
>> can't see that happening here, we've been too prosperous for too long,
>
> Maybe you haven't looked. Where I live, there are few illegals and most
> min-wage jobs are held by WASPs jes like myself. Walmart, restaurants,
> burger joints..... all American whitey's.
>
> I'm so sick of that bullshit mantra politicians have been spouting for the
> last 10 year, "Illegals do the work Amercans won't". It's a gawdamn lie and
> I'm here to tell you so.
>
> nb

what i find interesting is that republicans demonize illegal immigrants but
haven't lifted a finger to penalize those who hire them. what's up with
that?

and sorry, n.b., american workers won't put up with working for sub-minimum
wages to pick crops under the threat that if they complain, they can be
deported. business owners like the current set-up just fine, which is why
it won't be changed anytime soon.

blake

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:11:36 -0500, C.D wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:20:29 -0500, C.D wrote:
>>
>>>>> c'mon. you have to know that one single administration could not
>>>>> possibly be
>>> the cause of all this. in a sense we are all guilty. some for being
>>> really
>>> greedy and some for being really stupid. it's a twofer.
>>
>> nobody asked me if the pointless invasion of iraq and the subsequent
>> torture, elimination of habeas corpus, and scuttling of our civil rights
>> was a good idea.
>>
>> now, if you voted for commander codpiece, you have my blessings if you
>> want
>> to feel guilty. i did not.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>
> well...thats my point. you voted stupid and i voted greedy.

you voted greedy? how did that turn out for you? is your portfolio
increasing?

as for stupid, i can't imagine even the most feckless democrat presiding
over the cluster**** that was george w. bush's administration. was there
even one thing he did that benefited the country as a whole?

blake

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:15:38 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Goomba > wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. Bill wrote:
>>> > Today, a share of New York Times stock dropped lower than a copy of
>>> > New York Times Sunday edition. Isn't this exciting??
>>> >
>>> He and Pelosi/Reid have really botched up in such a short time.
>
> I looked and looked, but couldn't find the smiley face here.
>
> :-(
>
>> It is way too soon to tell. The economic mess we are in now took years
>> to develop.
>
> One of the bills considered largely responsible for our current mess was
> signed by President Clinton in 2000.
>
>> No stimulus package can possibly fix all our economic
>> problems in just a few hours. To expect so is simply foolish. This
>> stimulus package will take a few years to work, if it works at all.
>>
>> I figure that by the time the mid-term elections roll around, if there
>> aren't any real signs of economic improvement in the United States, the
>> Democrats will be sunk, including Obama. If the stimulus package shows
>> some significant signs that its working by the mid-term elections, the
>> Republicans will be sunk, except for the three in the Senate who voted
>> for it.
>>
>> Right now, all we can do is wait in order to see how this new stimulus
>> package turns out.
>
> I agree completely. There will be hard times ahead, just like there
> were in the Great Depression. Just how hard, I have no idea.

i don't know if it will be as bad as the great d., but it will be hairy.

your pal,
blake

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:44:54 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:56:15 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>
>>I don't understand how the electorate is dumb enough to keep voting
>>some of these guy back into office.
>
> I gave up trying to understand after Bush2 was re-elected.

that was indeed a puzzler.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:28:48 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:38:19 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>>On 2009-02-19, sf > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:56:15 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't understand how the electorate is dumb enough to keep voting
>>>>some of these guy back into office.
>>>
>>> I gave up trying to understand after Bush2 was re-elected.
>>
>>Amen, sf. It staggers the imagination. :\
>
> How do you think we in Illinois feel after re-electing Blago?
>
> Lou

i think in both cases, most people didn't know exactly how sleazy the
things they were up to were.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:11:36 -0500, C.D wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:20:29 -0500, C.D wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> c'mon. you have to know that one single administration could not
>>>>>> possibly be
>>>> the cause of all this. in a sense we are all guilty. some for being
>>>> really
>>>> greedy and some for being really stupid. it's a twofer.
>>>
>>> nobody asked me if the pointless invasion of iraq and the subsequent
>>> torture, elimination of habeas corpus, and scuttling of our civil rights
>>> was a good idea.
>>>
>>> now, if you voted for commander codpiece, you have my blessings if you
>>> want
>>> to feel guilty. i did not.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>>
>>
>> well...thats my point. you voted stupid and i voted greedy.
>
> you voted greedy? how did that turn out for you? is your portfolio
> increasing?
>
> as for stupid, i can't imagine even the most feckless democrat presiding
> over the cluster**** that was george w. bush's administration. was there
> even one thing he did that benefited the country as a whole?
>
> blake

thats why its a twofer. i was wrong, yet still liquid, and now we have a
"pinball wizard" in the whitehouse. he's been so hyped he's destined to
fail.

--
C.D

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
> what i find interesting is that republicans demonize illegal immigrants
> but
> haven't lifted a finger to penalize those who hire them. what's up with
> that?
>

If the people hiring them were sent to jail, there would be few people left
in Congress and no one to cut their lawns or watch their children.

blake murphy wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:15:09 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:08:25 -0500, George wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyone who roots for either the blue or red teams and thinks one is
> >>> better or worse than the other is being played.
> >>
> >> anyone who thinks there is no difference between the two parties is a
> >> horse's ass.
> >
> > They're both the parties of BIG BUSINESS and so are *beholden* to big
> > business interests, blake...any diffs between them are a mere
bagatelle...a
> > fairy's kiss of a wisp, if you will.
> >
> > They both wish to consolidate wealth and power for a very few at the top
at
> > the expense of the rest of us, please don't kid yourself that they're
not.
> > Their "tactics" may vary, but that's the truth...
>
> that may be true, but i don't recall the democrats being all that
> interested in listening in on your phone conversations or invading
> countries that constituted no threat to the u.s.
>
> nor (just to throw this in) do i recall democrats being on a tear to
> convince the citizens that *** people were a menace to society. something
> to consider when next you are blowing somebody.


Who needs live sex when we've got alt.binaries.erotica.male...???

;-P


--
Best
Greg

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:13:45 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:15:09 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:08:25 -0500, George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who roots for either the blue or red teams and thinks one is
>>>>> better or worse than the other is being played.
>>>>
>>>> anyone who thinks there is no difference between the two parties is a
>>>> horse's ass.
>>>
>>> They're both the parties of BIG BUSINESS and so are *beholden* to big
>>> business interests, blake...any diffs between them are a mere
> bagatelle...a
>>> fairy's kiss of a wisp, if you will.
>>>
>>> They both wish to consolidate wealth and power for a very few at the top
> at
>>> the expense of the rest of us, please don't kid yourself that they're
> not.
>>> Their "tactics" may vary, but that's the truth...
>>
>> that may be true, but i don't recall the democrats being all that
>> interested in listening in on your phone conversations or invading
>> countries that constituted no threat to the u.s.
>>
>> nor (just to throw this in) do i recall democrats being on a tear to
>> convince the citizens that *** people were a menace to society. something
>> to consider when next you are blowing somebody.
>
> Who needs live sex when we've got alt.binaries.erotica.male...???
>
> ;-P

i wouldn't be too sure that the dept. of homeland security isn't keeping
tabs on that also.

blake

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:52:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>
>> what i find interesting is that republicans demonize illegal immigrants
>> but
>> haven't lifted a finger to penalize those who hire them. what's up with
>> that?
>>
>
> If the people hiring them were sent to jail, there would be few people left
> in Congress and no one to cut their lawns or watch their children.

this is true also.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:50:51 -0500, C.D wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:11:36 -0500, C.D wrote:
>>
>>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:20:29 -0500, C.D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> c'mon. you have to know that one single administration could not
>>>>>>> possibly be
>>>>> the cause of all this. in a sense we are all guilty. some for being
>>>>> really
>>>>> greedy and some for being really stupid. it's a twofer.
>>>>
>>>> nobody asked me if the pointless invasion of iraq and the subsequent
>>>> torture, elimination of habeas corpus, and scuttling of our civil rights
>>>> was a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> now, if you voted for commander codpiece, you have my blessings if you
>>>> want
>>>> to feel guilty. i did not.
>>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>>>
>>>
>>> well...thats my point. you voted stupid and i voted greedy.
>>
>> you voted greedy? how did that turn out for you? is your portfolio
>> increasing?
>>
>> as for stupid, i can't imagine even the most feckless democrat presiding
>> over the cluster**** that was george w. bush's administration. was there
>> even one thing he did that benefited the country as a whole?
>>
>> blake
>
> thats why its a twofer. i was wrong, yet still liquid, and now we have a
> "pinball wizard" in the whitehouse. he's been so hyped he's destined to
> fail.

frankly, i voted for a democrat, not a 'wizard' or a messiah.

blake

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:36:14 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:28:48 -0600, Lou Decruss
> wrote:
>
>>How do you think we in Illinois feel after re-electing Blago?
>
>...not to mention Burris!

He wasn't elected.

Lou

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:05:38 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:


>and sorry, n.b., american workers won't put up with working for sub-minimum
>wages to pick crops under the threat that if they complain, they can be
>deported. business owners like the current set-up just fine, which is why
>it won't be changed anytime soon.

So is the answer to eliminate business owners and let the highly
efficient government control everything?

Lou

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:13:05 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:52:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> what i find interesting is that republicans demonize illegal immigrants
>>> but
>>> haven't lifted a finger to penalize those who hire them. what's up with
>>> that?
>>>
>>
>> If the people hiring them were sent to jail, there would be few people left
>> in Congress and no one to cut their lawns or watch their children.
>
>this is true also.

And that goes for BOTH sides of the fence.

Lou

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:33:12 -0600, Lou Decruss
> wrote:

>>...not to mention Burris!
>
>He wasn't elected.

That changes EVERYTHING...but somehow, he is in office for a few more
days. Or doesn't that moronic episode count?

On Feb 17, 5:31*pm, "C.D" > wrote:
> "cybercat" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "C.D" > wrote in message
> .com...
>
> >> "cybercat" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> "Mr. Bill" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> Today, a share of New York Times stock dropped lower than a copy of
> >>>> New York Times Sunday edition. * * *Isn't this exciting??
>
> >>> No, it really is dull. Didn't you have all the excitement you could take
> >>> under Bush's administration? Didn't all the torture and scandals keep
> >>> you titillated? The poverty, the gross abuse of power and trust?
>
> >> c'mon. you have to know that one single administration could not possibly
> >> be the cause of all this. in a sense we are all guilty. *some for being
> >> really greedy and some for being really stupid. it's a twofer.
>
> > I was talking about actions taken directly by the Bush administration and
> > their proven outcomes.
>
> > But, sure, I will admit that Bush's administration is about as responsible
> > for some aspects of the horrow as Barack is for the stock market losses..
>
> don't get me wrong...i think obama hasn't even had a chance yet to see the
> full scope. i blame reagan , clinton, and bush 1 &2. it's been a long time
> coming. we are nothing more than a consumer economy...(U.S) with basically
> no products worth exporting. the whole "global economy" theory has blown up
> and it will never be the same.

I agree completely. This is the violent, convulsive death of
Reaganomics.

"Are we on unsinkable, America today? In case of the unthinkable,
who's gonna have to pay?"
-- Mayday, by The Bonobos

Oh, and I'd just like to add that, "Hey baby, wanna stimulate my
package?, is NOT a well thought out pickup line.
>
> --
> C.D

--Bryan

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:15:31 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:05:38 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>and sorry, n.b., american workers won't put up with working for sub-minimum
>>wages to pick crops under the threat that if they complain, they can be
>>deported. business owners like the current set-up just fine, which is why
>>it won't be changed anytime soon.
>
> So is the answer to eliminate business owners and let the highly
> efficient government control everything?
>
> Lou

i think there can be a happy medium. enforcing the laws we have now might
be a good start.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:16:28 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:13:05 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:52:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> what i find interesting is that republicans demonize illegal immigrants
>>>> but
>>>> haven't lifted a finger to penalize those who hire them. what's up with
>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the people hiring them were sent to jail, there would be few people left
>>> in Congress and no one to cut their lawns or watch their children.
>>
>>this is true also.
>
> And that goes for BOTH sides of the fence.
>
> Lou

easy, lou. i would say only that democrats don't 'demonize' illegals.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:48:40 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:33:12 -0600, Lou Decruss
> wrote:
>
>>>...not to mention Burris!
>>
>>He wasn't elected.
>
>That changes EVERYTHING...but somehow, he is in office for a few more
>days. Or doesn't that moronic episode count?

My cynicism didn't come across I guess.

Lou

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:22:55 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

> was there even one thing he did that benefited the country as a whole?

Went back to Tex-ass.

Lou

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:27:56 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:28:48 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:38:19 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>>On 2009-02-19, sf > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:56:15 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't understand how the electorate is dumb enough to keep voting
>>>>>some of these guy back into office.
>>>>
>>>> I gave up trying to understand after Bush2 was re-elected.
>>>
>>>Amen, sf. It staggers the imagination. :\
>>
>> How do you think we in Illinois feel after re-electing Blago?
>>
>> Lou
>
>i think in both cases, most people didn't know exactly how sleazy the
>things they were up to were.

Nope. Chicago media and political commercials were loaded with info.
People chose to ignore it and voted blindly by party.

Lou

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:49:08 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:15:31 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:05:38 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>and sorry, n.b., american workers won't put up with working for sub-minimum
>>>wages to pick crops under the threat that if they complain, they can be
>>>deported. business owners like the current set-up just fine, which is why
>>>it won't be changed anytime soon.
>>
>> So is the answer to eliminate business owners and let the highly
>> efficient government control everything?
>>
>> Lou
>
>i think there can be a happy medium. enforcing the laws we have now might
>be a good start.

Well let's see what the new guys can do.

Lou

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:50:29 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:16:28 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:13:05 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:52:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> what i find interesting is that republicans demonize illegal immigrants
>>>>> but
>>>>> haven't lifted a finger to penalize those who hire them. what's up with
>>>>> that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the people hiring them were sent to jail, there would be few people left
>>>> in Congress and no one to cut their lawns or watch their children.
>>>
>>>this is true also.
>>
>> And that goes for BOTH sides of the fence.
>>
>> Lou
>
>easy, lou. i would say only that democrats don't 'demonize' illegals.
>
>your pal,
>blake

They should. Didn't you mention enforcing current laws in another
post?

Lou

Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:50:29 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:

>> easy, lou. i would say only that democrats don't 'demonize' illegals.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> They should. Didn't you mention enforcing current laws in another
> post?
>
> Lou


But they AREN'T demons, Lou. They're dirt poor people who were born
in a country that gives them no opportunity and no hope. Our ancestors
were lucky enough to have gotten here at an earlier time, some legally,
some illegally, when things were less complicated and society more
forgiving.

gloria p

"Gloria P" > wrote in message
...
> Lou Decruss wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:50:29 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>
>>> easy, lou. i would say only that democrats don't 'demonize' illegals.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> They should. Didn't you mention enforcing current laws in another
>> post?
>>
>> Lou
>
>
> But they AREN'T demons, Lou. They're dirt poor people who were born
> in a country that gives them no opportunity and no hope. Our ancestors
> were lucky enough to have gotten here at an earlier time, some legally,
> some illegally, when things were less complicated and society more
> forgiving.
>
And you can bet his were at the bottom of the pecking order.

cyber**** wrote:

>>>> i would say only that democrats don't 'demonize' illegals.
>>>>
>>> They should. Didn't you mention enforcing current laws in another
>>> post?
>>>
>>
>> But they AREN'T demons, Lou. They're dirt poor people who were born
>> in a country that gives them no opportunity and no hope. Our ancestors
>> were lucky enough to have gotten here at an earlier time, some legally,
>> some illegally, when things were less complicated and society more
>> forgiving.
>>
> And you can bet his were at the bottom of the pecking order.


Just as you are now, you morphing guttersnipe.

Bob

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:18:10 -0700, Gloria P >
wrote:

>Lou Decruss wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:50:29 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>
>>> easy, lou. i would say only that democrats don't 'demonize' illegals.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> They should. Didn't you mention enforcing current laws in another
>> post?
>>
>> Lou
>
>
>But they AREN'T demons, Lou. They're dirt poor people who were born
>in a country that gives them no opportunity and no hope. Our ancestors
>were lucky enough to have gotten here at an earlier time, some legally,
>some illegally, when things were less complicated and society more
>forgiving.

There's plenty of poor people here legally that deserve help first.
Many have even paid taxes. <---sarcasm. Soldiers are coming back
from Iraq and having a hard time finding work. Louise did a 6 month
gig last year for a tax accounting firm. Clients employees come up
with a name , address and SS# . Then work contract work and get
issued a 1099. By the time the IRS catches up with the fact that the
name and number don't match up and require withholdings or a correct
number the employee is gone. How about the guy who lives on the
border that made a mistake and kicked a fence hopper and lost a 70,000
suit for violating the rights of someone who didn't even belong here
to have the rights. I've seen business people loose contracts to
others who had illegals working for them. Meanwhile some of us are
paying taxes to put the kids of these people in school and expected to
learn their language. Sorry but you'll not persuade me to open my
arms to them.

Lou

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:18:34 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:50:29 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:16:28 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:13:05 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:52:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what i find interesting is that republicans demonize illegal immigrants
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> haven't lifted a finger to penalize those who hire them. what's up with
>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the people hiring them were sent to jail, there would be few people left
>>>>> in Congress and no one to cut their lawns or watch their children.
>>>>
>>>>this is true also.
>>>
>>> And that goes for BOTH sides of the fence.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>>easy, lou. i would say only that democrats don't 'demonize' illegals.
>>
>>your pal,
>>blake
>
> They should. Didn't you mention enforcing current laws in another
> post?
>
> Lou

yes, but if you squeal about 'illegals taking our jobs,' you should also
squeal about the people that hire them. since many are big republican
donors (tyson's, et al.), you don't see (elected) republicans doing that
much.

your pal,
blake