In sci.med.nutrition usual suspect > wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:

>>>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people espousing
>>>>>vegetarian diets because they think it will protect them from food
>>>>>poisoning. Not true.
>>>>
>>>>It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.
>>>
>>>You have no basis for concluding that, ****Har, you
>>>greasy little prick, except your bigoted semi-"vegan"
>>>religious beliefs.
>>
>> Of course it is quite accurate.
>
> Actually, it isn't.

Actually the most common source of food poisoning in the USA is
seafood. The second most common source is eating eggs.

Avoiding animal produce does indeed offer substantial level of protection.

``Beef, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy foods and eggs are especially
susceptible to contamination with disease-causing bacteria. Two major
factors contribute to the food-borne illness problem: food production
and slaughter methods, and improper handling. Although and meat
processing plants are periodically inspected by the USDA, a microbial
or chemical contamination cannot always be detected by sight, which is
the current inspection method. What’s more, the tremendous problem of
fecal contamination, a predominant cause of food poisoning, can result
from factory methods of slaughter."''

- http://www.healthfullivingintl.com/e...s/enews34.html
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

Reg wrote:
> Richard Periut wrote:
>
>> Yes. "Green onions carry food poisoning if improperly handled, even if
>> you grew them yourself."
>>
>> Can you explain how that phenomenom occurs? Cause only if what I
>> explained happens, it does not!
>
>
> Well skipper, to start off you deleted part of my statement. It was
> "Green CAN onions carry food poisoning if improperly handled".
> Why would you try to distort what I said?

That's not what the subject line states; but I'll agree that any canned
food item if not properly processed and handled can cause food poisoning.

>
> OK, you want a scenario (in addition to the Chi-Chi's case, of course).
> Somebody decides they want to create an oil infusion using green onions.
> They put their onions in a bottle of olive oil, leave it around for
> awhile at room temperature and end up with a bottle full of botulism
> toxin.
>

You have no clue to what you are talking about. The type of food
poisoning associated with botulism a syndrome at the neurological level.
Oil "standing" for a while will cause the spore to germinate that
quickly. Do a search on google and realize what nonsense you are talking.

> So ya see Mr crypto-vegan, my assertion stands. Green onions (or *any*
> food product for that matter), if improperly handled, can carry food
> poisoning. It can, but does not necessarily have to, come from human
> contact with the food item in question.
>
>> Yes, someone or some people contaminated the food. They don't "grow"
>> with the condition to cause food poisoing.
>
>
> Wrong again! Your assertion that the pathogen vector must be a human being
> is dead wrong.

You have a habit of misquoting me. I never said it must be a human.
Perhaps if I word it different you may catch the drift:

Green onions by themselves need to be contaminated by some person,
animal, or thing. Clear?
An example would be a botulism case from the midwest
> where a restaurant left some foil wrapped baked potatoes out at room
> temperature too long. The foil wrapping excluded oxygen just enough
> to allow botulism to grow and it resulted in a documented case of food
> poisoning.

Guy, PLEASE get a friggin book on microbiology and stop babbling. You
need warmth, anaerobic conditions, and spores, for the aforementioned to
happen. A potato wrapped in foil for a couple of hours wont cut it.
The cases usually involve thick viscous foods (stews, soups, et cetera,)
which can totally seal the spores in an anaerobic milleau, warmth for
several hours, and usually involving root veggies et cetera which are
contaminated with the spores.

Check the CDC archives and read all about it. It'll be a good
> learning experience for you.
>

I already have, and am credentialed by the ABIM. www.abim.org ,look me up.

>> Do you even understand the various types of syndromes associated with
>> food poisoning?
>
>
> Yes, and I'm happy to help you learn about this important subject matter.
>

Based on your answer, I doubt you even understand the question.

Richard Periut

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava
beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

"Peter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> ravinwulf wrote:
>
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> >> "Dimitri" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >>
> >>> "jitney" > wrote in message
> >>> om...
> >>>
>
>
> Racist Ray Slater was only making a leaden joke. He's
> the ultimate bigot, regularly and frequently calling
> posters "******", "kike", "gook" and so on.

Ok Peter,

Bit of a joke, but I've never called anyone a "Kike" or a "******", "Gook
certainly and don't forget the 'Nips'.
But I always qualify my postings by saying never judge a person by his
colour, judge him by the way he acts.
Obviously this is a US internal posting, but there is much talk of illegall
immigration. Where do your immigrants originate? We have a immigration
problem in the UK, but they do not take our jobs, they are not here to work,
just to scrounge off the social security system and turn the UK into a
Muslim state.

That's not racist it's realist.
>

Ray wrote:
> Bit of a joke, but I've never called anyone a "Kike" or a "******", "Gook
> certainly and don't forget the 'Nips'.

We won't.

> But I always qualify my postings by saying never judge a person by his
> colour, judge him by the way he acts.

Then why do you say "most" Asians are bad?

> Obviously this is a US internal posting, but there is much talk of illegall
> immigration. Where do your immigrants originate?

Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants from all
over the world.

> We have a immigration
> problem in the UK, but they do not take our jobs, they are not here to work,
> just to scrounge off the social security system and turn the UK into a
> Muslim state.

It's the "religion of peace."

/sarcasm

> That's not racist it's realist.

I agree with you on that. What's the use in having laws if they're not
enforced? And what's the use in letting in people who don't or won't
work? It costs less to feed and house them in their countries of origin.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:18:38 -0500, "Jeff" >
wrote:

>It is quite possible that whatever was contaminated was contaminated before
>it reached the restaurant.

I think it is far more possible that the cook while cutting it up,
infected it all with his poo on his fingers.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:53:27 -0000, "Zakhar" >
wrote:

>Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally comes from the
>animal's intestinal tract.

The meat has never been in contact with that, unless the cook or
slaughter did cut through the intestinal tract with his knife and used
the same knife unwashed for cutting the meat.
That happens :-(

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:54:11 GMT, Bill > wrote:

>Exactly right, and exactly the point that ****Har, the
>incoherent semi-"vegan", deliberately ignores.

Wonder why preservated vegetables are the most risky thing to eat when
it comes to botulism??

It's befause soil and dirt infect them with almost 100% certainty with
C. botulinum spores. Just ask in rec.food.preserving

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Ray wrote:
> > Bit of a joke, but I've never called anyone a "Kike" or a "******",
"Gook
> > certainly and don't forget the 'Nips'.
>
> We won't.
>
> > But I always qualify my postings by saying never judge a person by his
> > colour, judge him by the way he acts.
>
> Then why do you say "most" Asians are bad?
>
> > Obviously this is a US internal posting, but there is much talk of
illegall
> > immigration. Where do your immigrants originate?
>
> Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants from all
> over the world.

That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the continenent of North
America, Central America and South America, which we shorten it to us
Americans.
Give us your unwanted, poor etc.
>
> > We have a immigration
> > problem in the UK, but they do not take our jobs, they are not here to
work,
> > just to scrounge off the social security system and turn the UK into a
> > Muslim state.
>
> It's the "religion of peace."
>
> /sarcasm
>
> > That's not racist it's realist.
>
> I agree with you on that. What's the use in having laws if they're not
> enforced? And what's the use in letting in people who don't or won't
> work? It costs less to feed and house them in their countries of origin.

Then it is OK for people to work and take jobs away from citizens so that
arguement is gone. The jobs should go to the most qualified.
Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and with the baby
boomers going on to retirement, then we don't have enough people to cover
their care. We need a large working force to pay for the care and Social
Security. The only way to do is through immigration.
The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work then the
government will cut back on benefits and money. What the UK is saying is
that because you are a UK citizen then you have a right to free money in our
socialist system.
The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries where they have
no government programs giving people money so they have learned to do
without and with very little help compared to home grown citizens.
There is no communist system in their country of origin usually. You work
you get to eat and if you don't then you don't eat. I would hope that this
reward system would be strived for instead of complaining that people are
taking Welfare money.
You will never see a person on Welfare go work in the fields. Instead they
complain about foreigners taking benefits and jobs.
As far as taking the UK into a muslin state, what kind of state are you now
with the Catholics killing the Protestants. It reminds me of the Alamo
heroes that gained Texas their independance from the dictator of Mexico.
One of the arguements was that Mexico did not allow religious freedom. Once
they gained their independence they put the black man in chains, instituted
slavery and proclaimed Texas a free state.
>

Alf Christophersen wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:18:38 -0500, "Jeff" >
> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>>It is quite possible that whatever was contaminated was contaminated be=
fore
>>it reached the restaurant.
>=20
>=20
> I think it is far more possible that the cook while cutting it up,
> infected it all with his poo on his fingers.

the only problem with that theory is that it doesn't take into account=20
the other cases traced to green onions.

http://forums.chef2chef.net/showflat...ty&Number=3D8=
4529

Consumers Advised That Recent Hepatitis A Outbreaks Have Been=20
Associated With Green Onions

The Food and Drug Administration is advising the public that several=20
recent hepatitis A outbreaks have been associated with eating raw or=20
undercooked green onions (scallions). Hepatitis A is a liver disease=20
that develops within 6 weeks of an exposure. Hepatitis A is usually=20
mild and characterized by jaundice (yellow discoloration of the skin),=20
fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and=20
fever. It can occasionally be severe, especially in people with liver=20
disease.

Hepatitis A outbreaks associated with raw or undercooked green onions=20
served in restaurants occurred in Tennessee, North Carolina and=20
Georgia in September. Another outbreak of hepatitis A among patrons of=20
a single restaurant occurred in Pennsylvania during late October and=20
early November, although the source of the outbreak has not yet been=20
determined. FDA, CDC, and the State of Pennsylvania have an=20
investigation underway to determine if a specific food is associated=20
with the Pennsylvania outbreak, and if so, the source. The source of=20
the green onions in the Tennessee outbreak appears to be Mexico. FDA=20
is continuing to investigate these outbreaks and has been in=20
consultation with Mexican authorities to obtain their assistance in=20
assessing the situation.

FDA offers the following advice to consumers concerned about the=20
possibility of getting hepatitis A from green onions:

Cook green onions thoroughly. This minimizes the risk of illness by=20
reducing or eliminating the virus. Cook in a casserole or saut=E9 in a=20
skillet.

Check food purchased at restaurants and delicatessens and ask whether=20
menu items contain raw or lightly cooked green onions. Consumers who=20
wish to avoid food that contains raw or lightly cooked green onions=20
should specifically request that raw or lightly cooked green onions=20
not be added to their food. Foods such as freshly prepared salsa and=20
green salads often contain raw green onions.
FDA, CDC and the States are actively investigating the outbreaks in an=20
attempt to determine the source of the green onions associated with=20
the outbreaks and how they became contaminated, so that corrective=20
action can be taken.

While the investigations are ongoing, FDA will closely monitor the=20
safety of green onions and will take further actions as necessary to=20
protect consumers. Consumers who have recently eaten raw or lightly=20
cooked green onions do not need to take any specific measures, but=20
should monitor their health. Consumers who are experiencing symptoms=20
that could be hepatitis A should consult their health care providers=20
or the local health department.

###

Pastorio

Robert ranted:

>>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants from all
>>over the world.
>
> That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the continenent of North
> America, Central America and South America, which we shorten it to us
> Americans.

Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do people south
of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central or South America, and
most of North America is comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.

> Give us your unwanted, poor etc.

No, please don't. Give us your industrious and wise instead.

>>>We have a immigration
>>>problem in the UK, but they do not take our jobs, they are not here to
> work,
>>>just to scrounge off the social security system and turn the UK into a
>>>Muslim state.
>>
>>It's the "religion of peace."
>>
>>/sarcasm
>>
>>
>>>That's not racist it's realist.
>>
>>I agree with you on that. What's the use in having laws if they're not
>>enforced? And what's the use in letting in people who don't or won't
>>work? It costs less to feed and house them in their countries of origin.
>
> Then it is OK for people to work and take jobs away from citizens so that
> arguement is gone.

No, I didn't say that.

> The jobs should go to the most qualified.

They usually do, sparky.

> Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and with the baby
> boomers going on to retirement, then we don't have enough people to cover
> their care.

Yes, and we should abolish Ponzi schemes like Social Security and
Medicare immediately so they'll still have time to stash some money in
their 401(k)s and IRAs.

> We need a large working force to pay for the care and Social
> Security.

FU. We don't need Social Security. Or "the care," whatever the hell that is.

> The only way to do is through immigration.

No, there are other ways that make a lot more sense -- especially with
so many unassimilated immigrants here already.

> The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work then the
> government will cut back on benefits and money.

What are you smoking, Bob?

> What the UK is saying is
> that because you are a UK citizen then you have a right to free money in our
> socialist system.

I don't think that was ever the intention of the UK scheme, just one of
the unintended results of government programs gone awry.

> The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries where they have
> no government programs giving people money so they have learned to do
> without and with very little help compared to home grown citizens.

How the hell is that an "advantage"?

> There is no communist system in their country of origin usually.

Irrelevant. The issue isn't communism or socialism, per se. You're
forgetting how much foreign aid and private relief benefits third-world
slackers.

> You work you get to eat and if you don't then you don't eat.

Not always. In fact, rarely.

> I would hope that this
> reward system would be strived for instead of complaining that people are
> taking Welfare money.

What reward system are you prating about now?

> You will never see a person on Welfare go work in the fields.

Why should they? You already give them money not to work. Suppose your
giving someone $300 a week not to work right now and he's offered a job
at $400 a week. In effect, he's only being offered $100 a week to work.
Would YOU leave YOUR home every morning and work forty hours for $100?

Most people on welfare have that kind of incentive NOT to work. You'll
get people out in the fields and off welfare when you stop giving them
welfare in the first place.

> Instead they complain about foreigners taking benefits and jobs.

I don't know where you live, but illegal immigrants are causing a lot of
problems down here along the border. We have to educate their children,
we have to provide medical care, and we house and clothe and feed them.
That eats into state and local budgets for EVERY program designed to
benefit people who are here *legally*.

The fastest way to get California's budget balanced would be to send
illegals back home when they're caught. In fact, they'd have a big ass
surplus.

> As far as taking the UK into a muslin state, what kind of state are you now
> with the Catholics killing the Protestants.

That's in Northern Ireland. Catholics and Protestants seem to get along
quite well in the rest of the UK.

> It reminds me of the Alamo
> heroes that gained Texas their independance from the dictator of Mexico.
> One of the arguements was that Mexico did not allow religious freedom. Once
> they gained their independence they put the black man in chains, instituted
> slavery and proclaimed Texas a free state.

You clearly don't know much about history. I'm most ****ed off about
your claim that Texas was declared a free state, though that's not your
only flaw. Just remember, Texas was declared a FREE *REPUBLIC*.

"Alf Christophersen" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:54:11 GMT, Bill > wrote:
>
> >Exactly right, and exactly the point that ****Har, the
> >incoherent semi-"vegan", deliberately ignores.
>
> Wonder why preservated vegetables are the most risky thing to eat when
> it comes to botulism??
>
> It's befause soil and dirt infect them with almost 100% certainty with
> C. botulinum spores. Just ask in rec.food.preserving

Damaged tins.

>

Zakhar wrote:
>
> "Alf Christophersen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:54:11 GMT, Bill > wrote:
> >
> > >Exactly right, and exactly the point that ****Har, the
> > >incoherent semi-"vegan", deliberately ignores.
> >
> > Wonder why preservated vegetables are the most risky thing to eat when
> > it comes to botulism??
> >
> > It's befause soil and dirt infect them with almost 100% certainty with
> > C. botulinum spores. Just ask in rec.food.preserving
>
> Damaged tins.
>
> >

Nothing to do with damaged tins. The spores of C botulinum (and its
relatives) are common in soils. Unless fruits and vegetables are very
carefully washed, scraped and dunked in chlorine bleach for ages etc,
those spores *will* be in tinned foods. However, careful heating
procedures (reaching the right temp for the right amount of time) during
canning will either inactivate the spores or prevent them from
germinating.
Because they are obligate anaerobes, the presence of oxygen which could
result from a damaged can (as in a pinhole or crack) would most likely
not encourage them to germinate. However a poorly-prepared sealed
container would be an ideal environment for them to germinate.
That's why tinned fruits, vegetables and sometimes meats/fish present a
higher risk for botulism than fresh.

Richard Periut wrote:

Garlic in oil, when mishandled, can indeed result in botulism poisoning.
Baked potatoes wrapped in foil, when mishandled, can also result in botulism
poisoning.

First you say garlic in oil can't:

> You have no clue to what you are talking about. The type of food
> poisoning associated with botulism a syndrome at the neurological level.
> Oil "standing" for a while will cause the spore to germinate that
> quickly. Do a search on google and realize what nonsense you are talking.

Then you say baked potatoes wrapped in foil can't:

> Guy, PLEASE get a friggin book on microbiology and stop babbling. You
> need warmth, anaerobic conditions, and spores, for the aforementioned to
> happen. A potato wrapped in foil for a couple of hours wont cut it. The
> cases usually involve thick viscous foods (stews, soups, et cetera,)
> which can totally seal the spores in an anaerobic milleau, warmth for
> several hours, and usually involving root veggies et cetera which are
> contaminated with the spores.

You're wrong on both counts. Try a little reading.

From the Centers for Disease Control page on botulism:

Vehicles of transmission have included homemade salsa,
BAKED POTATOES COOKED IN ALUMINUM FOIL, cheese sauce,
GARLIC IN OIL, and traditionally prepared salted or
fermented fish in Alaska.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/disea...botulism_t.htm

There's lots more on the CDC site on the subject, including case
studies. If you're really interested in the subject I suggest
you read it.

> and am credentialed by the ABIM. www.abim.org ,look me up.

Congrats. You're living proof of how many doctors are woefully
uninformed on the subject of food and nutrition.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

Reg wrote:
> Richard Periut wrote:
>
> Garlic in oil, when mishandled, can indeed result in botulism poisoning.
> Baked potatoes wrapped in foil, when mishandled, can also result in
> botulism
> poisoning.
>

Now you are changing your tune a bit. It went from someone infusing
olive oil with green onions, and voila, you have botulin toxin. It's not
that way, or should you be more specific: someone carelessly put some
green onions, without washing them, in some garlic oil, and let it rest
in a warm place overnight or for several hours, et cetera.

The way you referred to it can be very misleading.


> First you say garlic in oil can't:
>
>> You have no clue to what you are talking about. The type of food
>> poisoning associated with botulism a syndrome at the neurological
>> level. Oil "standing" for a while will cause the spore to germinate
>> that quickly. Do a search on google and realize what nonsense you are
>> talking.
>
>
> Then you say baked potatoes wrapped in foil can't:


See aforementioned explanation, but replace oil and onions with potatoes.

>
>> Guy, PLEASE get a friggin book on microbiology and stop babbling. You
>> need warmth, anaerobic conditions, and spores, for the aforementioned
>> to happen. A potato wrapped in foil for a couple of hours wont cut
>> it. The cases usually involve thick viscous foods (stews, soups, et
>> cetera,) which can totally seal the spores in an anaerobic milleau,
>> warmth for several hours, and usually involving root veggies et cetera
>> which are contaminated with the spores.
>
>
> You're wrong on both counts. Try a little reading.

<sigh> I'm not going to be redundant with you.

>
> From the Centers for Disease Control page on botulism:
>
> Vehicles of transmission have included homemade salsa,
> BAKED POTATOES COOKED IN ALUMINUM FOIL, cheese sauce,
> GARLIC IN OIL, and traditionally prepared salted or
> fermented fish in Alaska.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/disea...botulism_t.htm
>
> There's lots more on the CDC site on the subject, including case
> studies. If you're really interested in the subject I suggest
> you read it.
>
>> and am credentialed by the ABIM. www.abim.org ,look me up.
>
>
> Congrats. You're living proof of how many doctors are woefully
> uninformed on the subject of food and nutrition.
>

No my friend; your living proof that the average layman, can take a bit
of information from a medical site or book, and turn it into
misinformation for the rest.

You have to be clear when you make such a statement. Again, let me
process this as clear as possible: for botulin toxin to form, you need
the contaminated food item (onions, potatoes, most things in contact
with soil that harbor the ubiquitous clostridia,) then it needs to be on
the humid side, an anaerobic environment (i.e., very low or no O2 at
all,) and finally TIME. Notice how the CDC specifically instructs its
readers that foods should be served hot, or refrigerated immediately.
Most people would tend to keep foods in a warm place, in anticipation of
eating it or serving it later. This may contribute to the formation of
such toxin if other conditions are met.

Your blanket statement needs refinement. It's like saying smoking
cigarettes causes cancer. That is not true. That smoking cigarettes is
the major factor in 90% of cases of lung cancer is true, but it's not
the only factor; genes, other environmental factors, nutrition, et
cetera, also play roles. The proof of this is the many heavy smokers
that live into their 80's and 90's and die of other diseases.

Never speak in black or white, but rather, in shades of gray.

Richard

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava
beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

Botulism!?!?!?

I just heard about this today... wasn't it hepatitis?
I know people have died - but from what I heard, it wasn't
from botulism.

```````````````````

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:48:57 GMT, Reg >
wrote:

Then it is OK for people to work and take jobs away from citizens so
that
arguement is gone. The jobs should go to the most qualified.
Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and with the
baby
boomers going on to retirement, then we don't have enough people to
cover
their care. We need a large working force to pay for the care and
Social
Security. The only way to do is through immigration.
The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work then the
government will cut back on benefits and money. What the UK is saying
is
that because you are a UK citizen then you have a right to free money
in our
socialist system.
The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries where they
have
no government programs giving people money so they have learned to do
without and with very little help compared to home grown citizens.
There is no communist system in their country of origin usually. You
work
you get to eat and if you don't then you don't eat. I would hope that
this
reward system would be strived for instead of complaining that people
are
taking Welfare money.(snip)

I said unresricted ILLEGAL immigration, not immigration per se. Learn
how to read. And were those Christians who flew the jets into the twin
towers? And did Egyptians bring us the West Nile Virus? If so, you
would never hear it from our politically correct CDC.-Jitney

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:58:57 GMT, Tim Tyler > wrote:

>Clostridia Spores in food (especially meat)
After being in contact with soil.

Another risky thing with clostridia are all kind of things growing in
soil or who regularly get in touch with soil (from rain splashing soil
onto them eg.)

(Clostridium botulinum is an anaerobic bacteria mostly found in soil,
especially in oxygen-free mud, but spores is found everywhere in all
kind of soil, germinating if the soil is wettened and become oxygen
free. When the living bacteria again are gradually exposed to oxygen,
they quickly start to form spores again.

"jitney" > wrote in message
om...
> Then it is OK for people to work and take jobs away from citizens so
> that
> arguement is gone. The jobs should go to the most qualified.
> Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and with the
> baby
> boomers going on to retirement, then we don't have enough people to
> cover
> their care. We need a large working force to pay for the care and
> Social
> Security. The only way to do is through immigration.
> The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work then the
> government will cut back on benefits and money. What the UK is saying
> is
> that because you are a UK citizen then you have a right to free money
> in our
> socialist system.
> The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries where they
> have
> no government programs giving people money so they have learned to do
> without and with very little help compared to home grown citizens.
> There is no communist system in their country of origin usually. You
> work
> you get to eat and if you don't then you don't eat. I would hope that
> this
> reward system would be strived for instead of complaining that people
> are
> taking Welfare money.(snip)
>
> I said unresricted ILLEGAL immigration, not immigration per se. Learn
> how to read.
We have essentially unrestricted illegal immigration with amnesties granted
after so many years. What are you talking about? It is designed that way
and the way you want it has never existed and will never be put into place
even with oppossing priorities such as security risks.

And were those Christians who flew the jets into the twin
> towers?
I thought those were Ronald Reagan Freedom fighters trained by us. The
Christians are the ones who blew up Oklahoma buildings trained in the Army
by us and the Anthrax deaths was a home grown strain from a secure Army
base. I never though muslims had a hatred for Democrats as they were the
intended targets.

And did Egyptians bring us the West Nile Virus? If so, you
> would never hear it from our politically correct CDC.-Jitney

The CDC comes up with policies to prevent disease. If you are in a farm
field and have to take a shit and the farmer doesn't want to spend money on
placing any toilets then whose fault is that?
If you built it he will come. You want to blame everything on immigrants
which really places a racist tone to it when you really brake it down and
look at it.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Robert ranted:
>
> >>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants from all
> >>over the world.
> >
> > That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the continenent of North
> > America, Central America and South America, which we shorten it to us
> > Americans.
>
> Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do people south
> of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central or South America, and
> most of North America is comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.

Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly that. It has
the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.

>
> > Give us your unwanted, poor etc.
>
> No, please don't. Give us your industrious and wise instead.

Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had $100,000 at hand
for Canadian citizenship right after the turnover to China.
> > Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and with the baby
> > boomers going on to retirement, then we don't have enough people to
cover
> > their care.
>
> Yes, and we should abolish Ponzi schemes like Social Security and
> Medicare immediately so they'll still have time to stash some money in
> their 401(k)s and IRAs.

Any system you come up with is dependant on the young who are working. It's
a pyrimide where you need productive growth. No growth and productivity
results in great loses and the old dependent on 401's goes down the tube.
>
> > We need a large working force to pay for the care and Social
> > Security.
>
> FU. We don't need Social Security. Or "the care," whatever the hell that
is.

Take a class in economics dude. You need need a young working class that
keeps cost down and immigration does the trick. Without them the price of
production becomes too high and you will see more jobs leave this country
where foreign workers get paid $2.00 an hour. This is a world economy with
free trade and all.
>
> > The only way to do is through immigration.
>
> No, there are other ways that make a lot more sense -- especially with
> so many unassimilated immigrants here already.
>
> > The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work then the
> > government will cut back on benefits and money.
>
> What are you smoking, Bob?
>
> > The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries where they
have
> > no government programs giving people money so they have learned to do
> > without and with very little help compared to home grown citizens.
>
> How the hell is that an "advantage"?

They get paid less and the job stays here plus the work they do can not be
done by these people who are spoiled as citizens here are.
>
> > There is no communist system in their country of origin usually.
>
> Irrelevant. The issue isn't communism or socialism, per se. You're
> forgetting how much foreign aid and private relief benefits third-world
> slackers.

Foreign aid my friend is payoffs to corrupt leaders. It never gets to the
people nor does the US care where it goes as long as it can buys influence.
Iraq is a good example. How much aid did we give the Phillipines with
Marcos during those years and all it got was shoes for Imelda Marcoes.
Every time we want to go to war we offer aid for bases like Turkey remember.
Give us bases and get aid or don't give us bases and no aid. Going to the
people? Boy are you naive.
> > You will never see a person on Welfare go work in the fields.
> > Instead they complain about foreigners taking benefits and jobs.
>
> I don't know where you live, but illegal immigrants are causing a lot of
> problems down here along the border. We have to educate their children,
> we have to provide medical care, and we house and clothe and feed them.
> That eats into state and local budgets for EVERY program designed to
> benefit people who are here *legally*.

All children are educated and we start ESL special ed programs aimed
primarily for illegals. Everyone knows this. Medical care, we don't want
infectious diseases spread and we want to encourage illegals in coming here
so we provide free child prenatal care so they can have babies here. Most
of these people are working the money goes into the federal withholding that
they never see again. All these programs are here to help the illegals as
they always have a "don't ask don't tell" policy concerning legal status.
If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the border patrol,
why? Why not investigate people before benefits are given out and it's the
same answer.
>
> The fastest way to get California's budget balanced would be to send
> illegals back home when they're caught. In fact, they'd have a big ass
> surplus.

All that is rhetoric as California is dependant on illegal farm workers.
The fields would rot or they would have to pay people $30.00 an hour and it
would cost you $20.00 for a head of lettuce. Remember Orange county as how
many oranges do you see now? Where do you think most oranges come from now
and it's not Florida?
For somebody who lives in California you sure don't know the states economy.
Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United Farm Workers Union
and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
>
> > It reminds me of the Alamo
> > heroes that gained Texas their independance from the dictator of Mexico.
> > One of the arguements was that Mexico did not allow religious freedom.
Once
> > they gained their independence they put the black man in chains,
instituted
> > slavery and proclaimed Texas a free state.
>
> You clearly don't know much about history. I'm most ****ed off about
> your claim that Texas was declared a free state, though that's not your
> only flaw. Just remember, Texas was declared a FREE *REPUBLIC*.

You can count the minutes that it was a Republic. Let me ask you a question
here, who is the Secretary of State? I suppose I would have to tell you
what State right?

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert ranted:
> >
> > >>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants from all
> > >>over the world.
> > >
> > > That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the continenent of
North
> > > America, Central America and South America, which we shorten it to us
> > > Americans.
> >
> > Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do people south
> > of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central or South America, and
> > most of North America is comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
>
> Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly that. It
has
> the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.

No, the Monroe Doctrine declared that the Americas were no longer open to
European colonization and that any further attempts by Europeans to colonize
or politically influence the Americas may be considered hostile by the U.S.

I think you're mean the concept of Manifest Destiny.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:01:31 GMT, Reg > wrote:

>OK, you want a scenario (in addition to the Chi-Chi's case, of course).
>Somebody decides they want to create an oil infusion using green onions.
>They put their onions in a bottle of olive oil, leave it around for
>awhile at room temperature and end up with a bottle full of botulism
>toxin.
>
>So ya see Mr crypto-vegan, my assertion stands. Green onions (or *any*
>food product for that matter), if improperly handled, can carry food
>poisoning. It can, but does not necessarily have to, come from human
>contact with the food item in question.

when it come to C. botulinum spores and vegetables, they are
__ALWAYS__ infected, no matter how it is handled. But only by spores
from contact with the soil it grows in. All kind of soil contain
spores of C. botulinum, and immersing in oil and kept at room
temperature for some week is certainly a condition good enough to
waken up most of the spores to make living bacterias. It's basic
microbiology.
Even sterilized soil contain spores of C. botulinum. They may be
viable even after many thousands of years in soil. Only heating wet at
130 deg C or dry at more than 300 deg C will kill them. But that would
destroy most of the soil too.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:37:42 GMT, Richard Periut >
wrote:

>Green onions by themselves need to be contaminated by some person,
>animal, or thing. Clear?

Never heard before that onions is grown without soil ?? Soil in itself
will provide enough C. botulinum spores to make any part of vegetables
growing in the soil or parts where soil may be splashed onto during
hard rain weather, to infect the plant with at least one spore. One
spore on the skin of the plant is enough to make a population of
living C. botulinum if conditions are there, like oxygen free
vegetable oil in room temperature.

Just read they've pretty much pinned the hepatitis A outbreak on green
onions, and Chi-Chis and Taco Bell have eliminated them from their
menus. The FDA recommends that store-bought green onions be served
cooked, not raw. Wouldn't some kind of washing be adequate? I don't
think I want cooked green onions garnishing my enchilada.

BTW, some years ago when I mentioned Mexican imports (label on green
onions) to the produce manager in my supermarket, he said they usually
tried to remove non-US labeling.

"Nonymous" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Robert ranted:
> > >
> > > >>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants from
all
> > > >>over the world.
> > > >
> > > > That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the continenent of
> North
> > > > America, Central America and South America, which we shorten it to
us
> > > > Americans.
> > >
> > > Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do people
south
> > > of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central or South America,
and
> > > most of North America is comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
> >
> > Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly that. It
> has
> > the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.
>
> No, the Monroe Doctrine declared that the Americas were no longer open to
> European colonization and that any further attempts by Europeans to
colonize
> or politically influence the Americas may be considered hostile by the
U.S.

They have used that argument in every country that has leftist leanings.
They threatened invasion because of communist influence and thus USSR
influence. In short leftist meant "foreign influence" and thus the US gave
it itself the right based on that doctrine to mess with every countries
internal political affairs. The CIA in Chile and military actions in
Nicaragua. We train every military from the Americas here so we can keep an
eye on them. It is justified by us historically through the Monroe Doctrine.
>
> I think you're mean the concept of Manifest Destiny.
That is the actual taking of the land but colonization concepts are always
there to preserve US interest in the Americas and throughout the world.
Columbus discovered America and claimed it for Spain. He landed in the
Dominican Republic and that country speaks Spanish as most of the Americas.
There was Spanish influence for centuries and it was through a War in
California and in the southwest in which a treaty was signed. The treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo in which all mexican citizens living in the southwest were
granted all the benefits and rights of newly gained of US citizenship. They
were the first mexicans granted amnesty and all illegals since then have
followed.
At that time the racist views caused the lynching and complete land grabbing
of legally owned land by the previous mexican landowners. This was
Manifest Destiny and every country in the world does not underestimate the
will of Americans when they want something.
You have the only country in the whole world that has ever used a nuclear
weapon on another country killing women, children, and everything,
threatening other countries not to develop nuclear weapons. We invade
countries because of a percieved threat to develop a weapon and we do this
without UN approval or anybody elses. Is this a great country or what?

>
>

Robert ranted:
>>>>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants from all
>>>>over the world.
>>>
>>>That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the continenent of North
>>>America, Central America and South America, which we shorten it to us
>>>Americans.
>>
>>Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do people south
>>of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central or South America, and
>>most of North America is comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
>
> Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly that.

No, it didn't. The Monroe Doctrine was about European colonization in
the Western Hemisphere, not about US claims on other nations. You're
again showing your ignorance of history.

> It has the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.

That's not the case at all. If it were, we'd have Mexico paying us to
take care of their citizens who've flooded our border states.

>>>Give us your unwanted, poor etc.
>>
>>No, please don't. Give us your industrious and wise instead.
>
> Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had $100,000 at hand
> for Canadian citizenship right after the turnover to China.

Canada also takes in many from all over the world who lack resources and
want asylum.

>>>Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and with the baby
>>>boomers going on to retirement, then we don't have enough people to
> cover
>>>their care.
>>
>>Yes, and we should abolish Ponzi schemes like Social Security and
>>Medicare immediately so they'll still have time to stash some money in
>>their 401(k)s and IRAs.
>
> Any system you come up with is dependant on the young who are working.

No, only those which tax and spend. The issue of dependence, though, is
fundamental in any program which taxes and spends since it diminishes
workers' savings.

> It's
> a pyrimide where you need productive growth.

"Productive growth" isn't a function of population growth, which is at
the core of your argument.

> No growth and productivity
> results in great loses and the old dependent on 401's goes down the tube.

Productivity has increased in most industries even with fewer workers.
Profits have continued to grow because of such efficiency. Your argument
is baseless.

>>>We need a large working force to pay for the care and Social
>>>Security.
>>
>>FU. We don't need Social Security. Or "the care," whatever the hell that
> is.
>
> Take a class in economics dude.

I've actually taken several courses in economics, including some taught
by the kinds of people who like socialist programs like "the care" and
Social (in)Security. What is undeniable is that SS programs and others
are inefficient, and the inefficiencies are unrelated to demographics.

The program was not designed as a pension plan. Its use as one has
wrecked it and harmed our economy, and in order for it to succeed the
economy must be strong. More workers and/or more efficiency will only
float an inefficient transfer system for so long. SS outlays are
expected to increase some 15-25% per year for the next thirty years. If
we allow or encourage the US population to compound at the same
exponential rates, we'll have almost two billion people in that amount
of time. And in another thirty years, the population would be in excess
of 1,350,000,000,000 people. Where the **** will you put 1.3 *TRILLION*
people on this continent?

> You need need a young working class that
> keeps cost down and immigration does the trick.

Costs will compound regardless of population and immigration.

> Without them the price of
> production becomes too high and you will see more jobs leave this country
> where foreign workers get paid $2.00 an hour.

That's already happening. The real cost in the US of a $30,000 employee
to an employer in traceable costs (taxes, benefits, etc.) is about
$45,000; that's without considering nontraceable costs (lost or
diminished productivity, etc.), specialized training, etc. The SS burden
to employers is the same as employees, and doubled up on self-employed.
We don't need immigration reform, we need tax reform.

> This is a world economy with free trade and all.

Not quite free trade, but we may get there some day.

>>>The only way to do is through immigration.
>>
>>No, there are other ways that make a lot more sense -- especially with
>>so many unassimilated immigrants here already.

Like tax reform. Eliminate all corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.
That would be a good start. Increase the maximums for IRA and other
retirement programs.

The way it stands now, Congress will likely increase tax rates as the
baby boomers mature. This will skim a lot off the tax-deferred savings
of those who were wise enough to save for retirement to benefit those
who weren't. That would be wrong, but that's what I expect to happen
because of government's inherent shortsightedness and preference for big
programs over self-sufficiency.

>>>The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work then the
>>>government will cut back on benefits and money.
>>
>>What are you smoking, Bob?
>>
>>
>>>The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries where they
>
> have
>
>>>no government programs giving people money so they have learned to do
>>>without and with very little help compared to home grown citizens.
>>
>>How the hell is that an "advantage"?
>
> They get paid less

Only in the black market. Once they go on the books, they get the
benefits everyone else does.

> and the job stays here

Not in every industry. Relocation will still occur with increasing
frequency, and for the same reasons. Labor is a commodity, and
efficiencies can be had by hiring from pools where it costs
significantly less. With our current business tax and regulatory
climate, that means elsewhere.

> plus the work they do can not be
> done by these people who are spoiled as citizens here are.

Wrong. It can be done. They won't do it so long as you pay them not to
work. This is why we should end welfare rather than "mend" it.

>>>There is no communist system in their country of origin usually.
>>
>>Irrelevant. The issue isn't communism or socialism, per se. You're
>>forgetting how much foreign aid and private relief benefits third-world
>>slackers.
>
> Foreign aid my friend is payoffs to corrupt leaders.

Much of it yes, all of it no. Besides, I said private relief. That has
always had more accountability tied to it than federal relief programs,
whether it's for domestic or foreign use. End foreign aid and encourage
private relief efforts.

> It never gets to the
> people nor does the US care where it goes as long as it can buys influence.

Bullshit.

> Iraq is a good example.

How much did we give Iraq in the 1980s?

> How much aid did we give the Phillipines with
> Marcos during those years and all it got was shoes for Imelda Marcoes.

You tell me. How much aid did we give the Philippines (spell it
correctly next time) in the 1960s-80s? What did we get for it besides
use of bases? What about the jobs to locals our bases provided? And the
local economic activity of all those US servicemen and servicewomen and
their families?

> Every time we want to go to war we offer aid for bases like Turkey remember.

Not always. We didn't offer aid to the Saudis in the 1990s. We also
offer aid whether we have bases or not. The offer to Turkey wasn't for
aid, but increasing it. Pay attention to the news next time.

> Give us bases and get aid or don't give us bases and no aid. Going to the
> people? Boy are you naive.

Everywhere we've had bases, there's been a boom in the economy. Many
Filipinos wanted the US out of the Philippines; the most vigorous
defenders of America in the Philippines continue to be those living in
and around our bases. Those people benefitted from the economic activity
provided. That's true even in places like Saudi Arabia, where some
business people want us to remain though Wahabis want us out. I think
you're the naive one.

>>>You will never see a person on Welfare go work in the fields.
>>>Instead they complain about foreigners taking benefits and jobs.
>>
>>I don't know where you live, but illegal immigrants are causing a lot of
>>problems down here along the border. We have to educate their children,
>>we have to provide medical care, and we house and clothe and feed them.
>>That eats into state and local budgets for EVERY program designed to
>>benefit people who are here *legally*.
>
> All children are educated and we start ESL special ed programs aimed
> primarily for illegals. Everyone knows this.

Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. Before certain Supreme Court
rulings, schools didn't have to offer ESL or educate children who
should've been in a different country.

> Medical care, we don't want
> infectious diseases spread

That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal aliens. They
could receive such care in their native countries and await visas and
come here legally.

> and we want to encourage illegals in coming here
> so we provide free child prenatal care so they can have babies here.

That's NOT why we provide such treatment. We do it because the Court has
required care to be administered without consideration of legal status.

> Most
> of these people are working the money goes into the federal withholding that
> they never see again.

They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have processes for
legal immigration. They're in violation of our laws. Many of them do NOT
pay withholding taxes because they must have green cards to work
legally. You apparently are not familiar with immigration status as it
relates to taxation. At best, the only taxes illegals pay are sales taxes.

> All these programs are here to help the illegals as
> they always have a "don't ask don't tell" policy concerning legal status.

Bullshit. Healthcare programs exist for the benefits of legal citizens
and legal aliens.

> If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the border patrol,

He used to do that.

> why?

Because most police departments are (a) too overburdened with illegal
immigrants to do the job of the INS and (b) tired of INS releasing
illegals while their status hearings are pending. The INS doesn't
automatically deport every illegal alien. And most illegals never show
up for their status hearings.

> Why not investigate people before benefits are given out and it's the
> same answer.

Why not defend our borders and enforce our laws?

>>The fastest way to get California's budget balanced would be to send
>>illegals back home when they're caught. In fact, they'd have a big ass
>>surplus.
>
> All that is rhetoric as California is dependant on illegal farm workers.

No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with green cards
(meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from migrant farm workers.

> The fields would rot or they would have to pay people $30.00 an hour and it
> would cost you $20.00 for a head of lettuce.

Hyperbole. Even at $30/hour, a head of lettuce wouldn't cost $20/head.

> Remember Orange county as how
> many oranges do you see now? Where do you think most oranges come from now
> and it's not Florida?

Improved and cheaper transportation and trade agreements are more
responsible for the availability of non-domestic produce.

> For somebody who lives in California you sure don't know the states economy.

I live in Texas. We, too, have a very large citrus industry, and it's
doing pretty well.

> Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United Farm Workers Union
> and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.

What's your source for this information?

>>>It reminds me of the Alamo
>>>heroes that gained Texas their independance from the dictator of Mexico.
>>>One of the arguements was that Mexico did not allow religious freedom.
> Once
>>>they gained their independence they put the black man in chains,
> instituted
>>>slavery and proclaimed Texas a free state.
>>
>>You clearly don't know much about history. I'm most ****ed off about
>>your claim that Texas was declared a free state, though that's not your
>>only flaw. Just remember, Texas was declared a FREE *REPUBLIC*.
>
> You can count the minutes that it was a Republic.

Try years. Two weeks short of a decade.

> Let me ask you a question here, who is the Secretary of State?

US? Colin Powell. Texas? Geoff Connor. California (since you seem to
think I live there)? Kevin Shelley, iirc.

> I suppose I would have to tell you what State right?

It depends on the context of your question, not on semantics.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:13:27 -0500, Bob Pastorio >
wrote:

>the only problem with that theory is that it doesn't take into account
>the other cases traced to green onions.

Seems like it's very common that cooks never wash their hands after
visiting toilet in US .-) Bad practice. Many get diseased by that.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message > > Ever heard of the
Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly that.
>
> No, it didn't. The Monroe Doctrine was about European colonization in
> the Western Hemisphere, not about US claims on other nations. You're
> again showing your ignorance of history.

Please read your own statement. Let me rephrase what you said "European
colonization", meaning the US lays claim to the western hemisphere and any
Eropean countries would yield a military response from the US. I was a
clear declaration of a US claim to the hemisphere.
You don't see that then I am sorry for you.
>
> > It has the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.
>
> That's not the case at all. If it were, we'd have Mexico paying us to
> take care of their citizens who've flooded our border states.

I agree and better still we would not have any mexicans come here without
the help of the american government.
The fact is they are generating income and providing low cost workers needed
by the US to make it competitive and keeping jobs within the US.
Your argument doesn't make sense. Why do US presidents time after time
grant amnesty to illegals and render them "legal". It does two things. 1.
it takes away the arguement that they are "illegal" and 2. It pomotes and
encourages more "temporary illegals" to come across the border until the
next president makes them legal.
That is reality and what you say is pure rhetoric and makes no sense at all.
> > Any system you come up with is dependant on the young who are working.
>
> No, only those which tax and spend. The issue of dependence, though, is
> fundamental in any program which taxes and spends since it diminishes
> workers' savings.

A government gets it's money from the workers and the less number of workers
the less money that government has to spend.
>
> > It's
> > a pyrimide where you need productive growth.
>
> "Productive growth" isn't a function of population growth, which is at
> the core of your argument.

Productive growth is needed in any stock market growth but in terms of
people working and paying taxes then with all the jobs not being filled now
because of a decreasing population you would need to tax the remaining
working force 80% to cover all the baby boomers.
>
> > No growth and productivity
> > results in great loses and the old dependent on 401's goes down the
tube.
>
> Productivity has increased in most industries even with fewer workers.
> Profits have continued to grow because of such efficiency. Your argument
> is baseless.

Company growth and government income are different.
Yes companies can make more money by decreasing their work force and
becoming more productive but they are not giving it to the government. Most
of the time the work force reduction is mandatory to just stay in business.
The market forces always go to cheap labor so to say anything different is
really weird.
> I've actually taken several courses in economics, including some taught
> by the kinds of people who like socialist programs like "the care" and
> Social (in)Security. What is undeniable is that SS programs and others
> are inefficient, and the inefficiencies are unrelated to demographics.
at the same

I agree but the SS is still taken out of every pay check and the less number
of pay checks the less money there is.
> We don't need immigration reform, we need tax reform.

I wasn't saying anything about immigration reform, only stating what the
policy is now which encourages illegal immigration. I am perplexed how this
is translated by many here as immigrant driven rather than US driven.
Illegals don't hire themselves ask Walmart. Why would they knowingly hire or
anyone hire one? They can't very well hide and they don't speak the
language. The answer is pretty obvious. They are wanted here.

> The way it stands now, Congress will likely increase tax rates as the
> baby boomers mature. This will skim a lot off the tax-deferred savings
> of those who were wise enough to save for retirement to benefit those
> who weren't. That would be wrong, but that's what I expect to happen
> because of government's inherent shortsightedness and preference for big
> programs over self-sufficiency.

So who's to blame for that? People don't know how to live without
government programs vs the immigrant from a country who never had one to
begin with. The mind set and resourcefulness are different. You have
people living on the side of a slope with an open flame kettle for meals.
These are the working homeless.
>
> > It never gets to the
> > people nor does the US care where it goes as long as it can buys
influence.
>
> Bullshit.

See the movie "Blackhawk Down".

> Not always. We didn't offer aid to the Saudis in the 1990s.

So we then offered aid to save their necks later on. Then we set a base up.


We also
> offer aid whether we have bases or not. The offer to Turkey wasn't for
> aid, but increasing it. Pay attention to the news next time.

We pay to use bases in Turkey as they are there. The additional aid was for
the "use" of the base for war. It is a NATO country dude, really man.

>
> > Give us bases and get aid or don't give us bases and no aid. Going to
the
> > people? Boy are you naive.
>
> Everywhere we've had bases, there's been a boom in the economy. Many
> Filipinos wanted the US out of the Philippines; the most vigorous
> defenders of America in the Philippines continue to be those living in
> and around our bases. Those people benefitted from the economic activity
> provided. That's true even in places like Saudi Arabia, where some
> business people want us to remain though Wahabis want us out. I think
> you're the naive one.

I never said people don't want our money and quite the contrary they do.
The US uses the aid to not only political advantage but to a military one.
You are the one saying the US are saints in giving humanitarian aid without
expectations. We expect things for money spent.
How much money are we giving the pilipinos now without bases vs before when
we had bases there? Where did that money go to?

> Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. Before certain Supreme Court
> rulings, schools didn't have to offer ESL or educate children who
> should've been in a different country.

This is the kind of double talk I am referring to. It is an illegal act to
enter this country without documentation and any illegals should be
deported. What part don't you understand in that simple concept.
You even have the Supreme Court protecting illegals because they are needed
here. Don't tell me the Supreme Court had to make that ruling as they could
have ruled any way they wanted. Did they ever rule slavery as
unconstitutional? No. They had to have come to a conclusion that illegals
are needed here for the cheap labor and therefore their children had a right
to go to school. There is no other way to see that.
>
> > Medical care, we don't want
> > infectious diseases spread
>
> That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal aliens. They
> could receive such care in their native countries and await visas and
> come here legally.

That's true so why do we provide it then?
>
> > and we want to encourage illegals in coming here
> > so we provide free child prenatal care so they can have babies here.
>
> That's NOT why we provide such treatment. We do it because the Court has
> required care to be administered without consideration of legal status.

For having future babies, I beg your pardon? These are not acute medical
emergencies. The Court does not see legal residency as an issue? That is my
whole point as there is no difference in the courts or out in the streets as
to illegal vs legal immigration. That is by intent not initiated by the
illegals but by the US.
>
> > Most
> > of these people are working the money goes into the federal withholding
that
> > they never see again.
>
> They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have processes for
> legal immigration. They're in violation of our laws.
Only one law that is not enforced by the Courts themselves so you again rely
on that non legal distinction between illegal and legal immigrant.


> > All these programs are here to help the illegals as
> > they always have a "don't ask don't tell" policy concerning legal
status.
>
> Bullshit. Healthcare programs exist for the benefits of legal citizens
> and legal aliens.

Because of community health issues illegals are encourged to apply for this
help as they want to prevent an illegal having a baby that will be a burden
to the State and other conditions such as TB etc.
>
> > If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the border patrol,
>
> He used to do that.
>
> > why?
>
> Because most police departments are (a) too overburdened with illegal

The rest is bull as aren't you afraid of all these terrorist out there.
Let's see give an illegal a ten year prison term and how much would that
cost at $20,000 a year.
>
> No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with green cards
> (meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from migrant farm workers.

Now you got it, they are legal because they were granted legal status by the
sign of the presidential pen.
>
> > Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United Farm Workers
Union
> > and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
>
> What's your source for this information?
Every Governor in the history of the state has asked for presidential legal
amnesty especially during the boycott years.
You got to be kidding. I marched with Mr Chavez. There was no protection
of union organizers and if you didn't know that Mr Conservative did not like
unions. Let me give you a clue here as most Republican conservatives don't
like unions. Shocking isn't it.
Here's another hint, Bobby Kennedy marched with us and he was not a
Republican like Reagan. Here's another shocker, Democrats like unions.
Oh, and I don't have any reference for the above so I must be wrong;
>
> > I suppose I would have to tell you what State right?
>
> It depends on the context of your question, not on semantics.
>
The State Department refers to "states" so the term can apply to a country
such as Texas or a state of the union such as Texas.
There were blacks who fought for Texas independence and after the fight was
won you enslaved them. Even after letters from leaders for their freedom.
It never mentions that at the Alamo does it?
UOT museum San Antonio

Alf Christophersen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:37:42 GMT, Richard Periut >
> wrote:
>
> >Green onions by themselves need to be contaminated by some person,
> >animal, or thing. Clear?
>
> Never heard before that onions is grown without soil ?? Soil in itself
> will provide enough C. botulinum spores to make any part of vegetables
> growing in the soil or parts where soil may be splashed onto during
> hard rain weather, to infect the plant with at least one spore. One
> spore on the skin of the plant is enough to make a population of
> living C. botulinum if conditions are there, like oxygen free
> vegetable oil in room temperature.


Yes, but we were talking about hepatitis virus, not any of the
Clostridia.

Robert wrote:
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert ranted:
> >
> > >>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants from all
> > >>over the world.
> > >
> > > That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the continenent of North
> > > America, Central America and South America, which we shorten it to us
> > > Americans.
> >
> > Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do people south
> > of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central or South America, and
> > most of North America is comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
>
> Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly that. It has
> the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.
>
> >
> > > Give us your unwanted, poor etc.
> >
> > No, please don't. Give us your industrious and wise instead.
>
> Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had $100,000 at hand
> for Canadian citizenship right after the turnover to China.

The US did precisely the same thing. When my Chinese colleague's family
decided to leave HK, his brokerage firm arranged the whole thing. They
came to the US, not Canada. Bypassed the entire visa application queue
(which was about 10 years long at that time).

Ignorant wrote:
>>No, it didn't. The Monroe Doctrine was about European colonization in
>>the Western Hemisphere, not about US claims on other nations. You're
>>again showing your ignorance of history.
>
> Please read your own statement.

No, read yours.

First, I wrote:
Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do
people south of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central
or South America, and most of North America is comprised of
Mexico and Canada. Go figure.

Then you replied:
Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly
that. It has the right to do what ever it wants in the
Americas.

The Monroe Doctrine is not license or right for the US "to do what ever
[sic] it wants in the Americas." It is very specific in its scope.

> Let me rephrase what you said "European
> colonization", meaning the US lays claim to the western hemisphere

Wrong. The US doesn't lay claim to the western hemisphere. It had four
elements. First, Monroe proposed that the American continents were
"henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by
any European powers." Second, he proposed that nations in the western
hemisphere were to remain (by distinction) republics by nature rather
than monarchies (this followed on the heels of attempts of installing an
emperor in Mexico and elsewhere). Third, Monroe stated that the United
States would regard as a threat to its own peace and safety any attempt
by European powers to impose their system on any independent state in
the western hemisphere. Finally, Monroe reaffirmed that the United
States would not interfere in European affairs.

Don't take my word for it. Go read it for yourself, dimwit:
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/monrodoc.html

> I was a
> clear declaration of a US claim to the hemisphere.

No, Monroe did not lay claim to the entire freaking hemisphere. The US
was, in a sense, protector of the hemisphere, but we did not lay claim
to it.

> You don't see that then I am sorry for you.

I actually studied it, so I know what I'm talking about. Save your pity
for your own misunderstandings of the matter.

>>>It has the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.
>>
>>That's not the case at all. If it were, we'd have Mexico paying us to
>>take care of their citizens who've flooded our border states.
>
> I agree and better still we would not have any mexicans come here without
> the help of the american government.

In a sense they do have the assistance of the Feds. The INS isn't
enforcing the laws, and the Border Patrol is underfunded.

> The fact is they are generating income and providing low cost workers needed
> by the US to make it competitive and keeping jobs within the US.

The jobs are here, but their families aren't. Illegal immigrants siphon
over $9 billion a year and send it home to Mexico. Labor is Mexico's
biggest export. It benefits the Mexican economy more than ours,
especially when you consider the impact illegals have on our education,
welfare, and healthcare systems.

> Your argument doesn't make sense.

Ipse dixit. Why doesn't it make sense? Be specific.

> Why do US presidents time after time
> grant amnesty to illegals and render them "legal". It does two things. 1.
> it takes away the arguement that they are "illegal"

Irrelevant. That in itself isn't an argument for amnesty, and it only
explains that an action has taken place -- but not WHY it has taken
place. Try again.

> and 2. It pomotes and
> encourages more "temporary illegals" to come across the border until the
> next president makes them legal.

That may (and does) happen, but that isn't WHY it happens. Try again.

> That is reality and what you say is pure rhetoric and makes no sense at all.

You're a ****ing joke. I encourage you to review the following list of
logical fallacies. See if you can figure out the ones that apply to your
statement of "reality."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

>>>Any system you come up with is dependant on the young who are working.
>>
>>No, only those which tax and spend. The issue of dependence, though, is
>>fundamental in any program which taxes and spends since it diminishes
>>workers' savings.
>
> A government gets it's money from the workers and the less number of workers
> the less money that government has to spend.

Only if it collects x amount per worker. That's not how our system
works. It's based on a "progressive" tax which generally punishes
achievement and encourages sloth. Revenues are a function of tax rates
in relation to economic activity. Increased levels of economic activity
combined with lower tax rates (which usually spurs economic activity)
can produce more revenue than higher tax rates (which usually slow down
economic activity) and a slower economy. JFK and Reagan both cut tax
rates, and net revenues increased as a result of the economic activity
which followed in each instance. We've also seen the same effect with
the tax rebates in the last couple years, particularly in the last quarter.

But, again, you're just plain wrong. Revenue has nothing to do with the
number of workers.

>>>It's
>>>a pyrimide where you need productive growth.
>>
>>"Productive growth" isn't a function of population growth, which is at
>>the core of your argument.
>
> Productive growth is needed in any stock market growth but in terms of
> people working and paying taxes then with all the jobs not being filled now
> because of a decreasing population you would need to tax the remaining
> working force 80% to cover all the baby boomers.

No, it would require more than that in a static analysis. The economy,
though, isn't static.

>>>No growth and productivity
>>>results in great loses and the old dependent on 401's goes down the
> tube.
>
>>Productivity has increased in most industries even with fewer workers.
>>Profits have continued to grow because of such efficiency. Your argument
>>is baseless.
>
> Company growth and government income are different.

Ipse dixit. You don't know what you're talking about. See above. Want
some charts, or will they only confuse you more?

> Yes companies can make more money by decreasing their work force and
> becoming more productive but they are not giving it to the government.

I wish they weren't, but they are.

> Most
> of the time the work force reduction is mandatory to just stay in business.
> The market forces always go to cheap labor so to say anything different is
> really weird.

LOL, you should exit the discussion if that kind of crap is your best
response (same with "anything you say is rhetoric" -- gimme a break).

>>I've actually taken several courses in economics, including some taught
>>by the kinds of people who like socialist programs like "the care" and
>>Social (in)Security. What is undeniable is that SS programs and others
>>are inefficient, and the inefficiencies are unrelated to demographics.
>
> at the same
>
> I agree but the SS is still taken out of every pay check and the less number
> of pay checks the less money there is.

No, see above. SS is based on a percentage of payroll (half from
employer, half from employee; all of it if one is self-employed).
Payrolls increase (not just the number of paychecks, but the size of
them) as the economy grows. Companies don't hire just to have workers,
so your argument is only half-right at best. I think you might be sharp
enough to realize that.

>>We don't need immigration reform, we need tax reform.
>
> I wasn't saying anything about immigration reform, only stating what the
> policy is now which encourages illegal immigration. I am perplexed how this
> is translated by many here as immigrant driven rather than US driven.

What state are you in? You must not live in Florida, Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, or California.

> Illegals don't hire themselves ask Walmart.

Neither does Walmart. Some of their contractors did. It's only a
question if Walmart actually knew about it, or approved of it.

> Why would they knowingly hire or anyone hire one?

They don't. The contractors, though, apparently understand the issue
well enough to know that the illegal workers in their hire NEEDED papers
to work for them. That's the issue that will go to court. It will only
affect Walmart legally if Walmart knew about it or encouraged it.

> They can't very well hide and they don't speak the
> language.

I'm sure it's safe to say you're not in Texas or California. They don't
have to hide except on the journey here. Once they're in, they're in.
There's not much they can do to get deported short of breaking other
laws or in the event that INS actually enforces law.

> The answer is pretty obvious. They are wanted here.

Non sequitur. Most illegals are undocumented or have fraudulent
documentation. Most of them work off the books, undercutting people who
are here legally and legitimately. Many of them in my area find work for
sub-contractors in the building trades, landscaping, and other such
labor. They do a good day's work for much less than what many others
require, especially if union workers demanding scale. You say they don't
hurt anyone. Tell that to someone who doesn't get as much work, if any,
for $15 an hour because someone working off the books and here illegally
will do the same job (and just as well) for less than minimum wage.

I'm all for getting the best price, and I admire the hard work
immigrants do. I also think we should apply our laws equally to
everyone. That goes for minimum wage (if we're going to have one) to tax
withholding to immigration.

>>The way it stands now, Congress will likely increase tax rates as the
>>baby boomers mature. This will skim a lot off the tax-deferred savings
>>of those who were wise enough to save for retirement to benefit those
>>who weren't. That would be wrong, but that's what I expect to happen
>>because of government's inherent shortsightedness and preference for big
>>programs over self-sufficiency.
>
> So who's to blame for that?

Government. They never should've gotten into the entitlement business.

> People don't know how to live without government programs

There were times when our government didn't pay people not to work, not
to plant certain crops, or fund their retirements. People got by.

> vs the immigrant from a country who never had one to
> begin with.

Irrelevant. Why should they come here for entitlement programs?

> The mind set and resourcefulness are different. You have
> people living on the side of a slope with an open flame kettle for meals.
> These are the working homeless.

Most illegal immigrants have housing. What are you talking about?

>>>It never gets to the
>>>people nor does the US care where it goes as long as it can buys
> influence.
>
>>Bullshit.
>
> See the movie "Blackhawk Down".

Somalia was a hellhole, and it still is. There was no government there,
which is why it was so risky going there. Try again.

>>Not always. We didn't offer aid to the Saudis in the 1990s.
>
> So we then offered aid to save their necks later on. Then we set a base up.

We were there to save their necks in the first place. We used their
bases, and they built us more.

> We also
>>offer aid whether we have bases or not. The offer to Turkey wasn't for
>>aid, but increasing it. Pay attention to the news next time.
>
> We pay to use bases in Turkey as they are there. The additional aid was for
> the "use" of the base for war.

We also give them aid unrelated to the use of our bases.

> It is a NATO country dude, really man.

And that's irrelevant, dude. We have a duty to compensate our hosts for
land they let us use.

>>>Give us bases and get aid or don't give us bases and no aid. Going to
> the
>>>people? Boy are you naive.
>>
>>Everywhere we've had bases, there's been a boom in the economy. Many
>>Filipinos wanted the US out of the Philippines; the most vigorous
>>defenders of America in the Philippines continue to be those living in
>>and around our bases. Those people benefitted from the economic activity
>>provided. That's true even in places like Saudi Arabia, where some
>>business people want us to remain though Wahabis want us out. I think
>>you're the naive one.
>
> I never said people don't want our money and quite the contrary they do.
> The US uses the aid to not only political advantage but to a military one.

So?

> You are the one saying the US are saints in giving humanitarian aid without
> expectations.

We do that, too.

> We expect things for money spent.

Not always. I argue that we never get the things we expect, so we
shouldn't dish out money like we do.

> How much money are we giving the pilipinos now without bases vs before when
> we had bases there? Where did that money go to?

I'm not going to try and track down every cent in various forms of aid
we give them (not enough time). We don't give as much because we're not
getting as much. We are supporting them militarily again so I know the
amount is rising for arms aid (total military aid of about $100m). I
know Presidents Bush and Arroyo last meeting resulted in the US
committing to $1b in trade benefits. We also have education funding and
other programs on the table with the Philippines (as well as other
nations) without any ties to military cooperation. As for where the
money went from earlier aid, a lot of it went to the Marcos family and
their cronies; a lot of it went to various programs for the citizens. We
don't micromanage our allies' nations; that would make them colonies,
not allies. After Marcos was deposed, though, a lot more money made it
to the people -- especially in relief assistance following the eruption
of Mount Pinatubo.

>>Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. Before certain Supreme Court
>>rulings, schools didn't have to offer ESL or educate children who
>>should've been in a different country.
>
> This is the kind of double talk I am referring to. It is an illegal act to
> enter this country without documentation and any illegals should be
> deported. What part don't you understand in that simple concept.

I *do* understand that concept. Go ask the ****ing Supreme Court why
*they* don't get the concept.

> You even have the Supreme Court protecting illegals because they are needed
> here.

That's *not* why the SC mandates that states apply programs to them.

> Don't tell me the Supreme Court had to make that ruling as they could
> have ruled any way they wanted.

Actually, I'd say that they're supposed to rule on the basis of the
Constitution, but it's clear that they don't do that very often.

> Did they ever rule slavery as
> unconstitutional? No.

Irrelevant issue.

> They had to have come to a conclusion that illegals
> are needed here for the cheap labor and therefore their children had a right
> to go to school. There is no other way to see that.

Yes there is: the right way. The Supreme Court has based their decisions
about illegal immigrants (children and adults) on case law, not on
economic necessity. See PLYER V DOE, 1982. The Court's decision was
based on equal protection of individuals.

>>>Medical care, we don't want
>>>infectious diseases spread
>>
>>That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal aliens. They
>>could receive such care in their native countries and await visas and
>>come here legally.
>
> That's true so why do we provide it then?

Hospitals used to deny medical care to illegal aliens. One of them sued
a hospital. The case went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that
aliens were ENTITLED to the same treatment as legal citizens. I don't
recall any of the relevant cases, but I believe most of them use PLYER
as precedent and use the same equal protection finding.

>>>and we want to encourage illegals in coming here
>>>so we provide free child prenatal care so they can have babies here.
>>
>>That's NOT why we provide such treatment. We do it because the Court has
>>required care to be administered without consideration of legal status.
>
> For having future babies, I beg your pardon?

We used to deport pregnant women. Border officials still try to herd
pregnant women back across the border. Once they're here, and once they
give birth, their child is a ticket to welfare and other benefits, as
well as citizenship for the entire family.

> These are not acute medical
> emergencies. The Court does not see legal residency as an issue?

No. Equal protection.

> That is my
> whole point as there is no difference in the courts or out in the streets as
> to illegal vs legal immigration. That is by intent not initiated by the
> illegals but by the US.

Bullshit, ipse dixit.

>>>Most
>>>of these people are working the money goes into the federal withholding
> that
>>>they never see again.
>>
>>They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have processes for
>>legal immigration. They're in violation of our laws.
>
> Only one law that is not enforced by the Courts themselves so you again rely
> on that non legal distinction between illegal and legal immigrant.

First, the Court doesn't enforce laws; the Court interprets laws. The
Supreme Court has never made a finding that our immigration laws are
unconstitutional, nitwit. They HAVE found, for whatever reason(s), that
entitlement programs must be operated without respect for legal status.
Many of us find that inconsistent, as well as very expensive. I
encourage you to read about immigration issues. The following site has
some very helpful information, but they *are* activists who want less
(not zero) immigration.

www.fairus.org

>>>All these programs are here to help the illegals as
>>>they always have a "don't ask don't tell" policy concerning legal
> status.
>
>>Bullshit. Healthcare programs exist for the benefits of legal citizens
>>and legal aliens.
>
> Because of community health issues

Bullshit.

> illegals are encourged to apply for this
> help as they want to prevent an illegal having a baby that will be a burden
> to the State and other conditions such as TB etc.

Stop making up shit, you ignorant ****. Name one government program
which *encourages* illegals to apply for healthcare assistance for TB or
anything else.

Illegals usually wait until something's gone out of hand to go to an
emergency room. They're afraid of deportation. They're reliance on
EMERGENCY ROOMS is at the heart of the problem. One-third of the Texas
state budget now goes for public health care expenses. ER bills of
aliens are usually picked up by taxpayers. States aren't reimbursed for
this by the feds.

http://www.illinoisleader.com/letter...ew.asp?c=10056
http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_1606.shtml
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co...y.asp?aid=5098
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=10568
http://www.kgun9.com/story.asp?Title...ramOption=News

Etc.

>>>If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the border patrol,
>>
>>He used to do that.
>>
>>>why?
>>
>>Because most police departments are (a) too overburdened with illegal
>
> The rest is bull as aren't you afraid of all these terrorist out there.

Not bull, you bitch. I live about 200 miles from the border. Parts of my
city are no longer distinguishable as an American city. Every
convenience store does Mexico cash transfers for illegals. Many citizens
are turned away from ERs this time of year because the illegals have
inundated them. Etc.

> Let's see give an illegal a ten year prison term and how much would that
> cost at $20,000 a year.

Idiot. We don't imprison illegals unless they commit other crimes. We
deport them.

>>No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with green cards
>>(meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from migrant farm workers.
>
> Now you got it, they are legal because they were granted legal status by the
> sign of the presidential pen.

No, clueless dolt. They have green cards because they go through INS
processing. You're confusing green cards and visas with amnesty. A green
card isn't amnesty. It's a legitimate step to citizenship.

http://www.us-immigration.org/

>>>Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United Farm Workers
> Union
>>>and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
>>
>>What's your source for this information?
>
> Every Governor in the history of the state has asked for presidential legal
> amnesty especially during the boycott years.

Ipse dixit.

> You got to be kidding.

No, I'm not. You haven't supported any of your bullshit above, so I
don't expect you to support any below.

> I marched with Mr Chavez.

Sure you did.

> There was no protection
> of union organizers and if you didn't know that Mr Conservative did not like
> unions.

He was president of one, asshole. It was called the Screen Actors Guild.
Maybe you forgot that while emoting over shit you don't comprehend.

> Let me give you a clue here as most Republican conservatives don't
> like unions. Shocking isn't it.

Why did all those union voters overwhelmingly vote for Reagan in '80 and
'84?

> Here's another hint, Bobby Kennedy marched with us and he was not a
> Republican like Reagan. Here's another shocker, Democrats like unions.

Why do Democrats raise taxes on union workers so much?

> Oh, and I don't have any reference for the above so I must be wrong;

You're wrong regardless. Reagan was president of SAG, a union. He had
nothing against them. Many union members are Republican, and they help
elect GOP candidates. Democrats like unions because those high union
wages are taxable despite all the fawning about being for the common man.

>>>I suppose I would have to tell you what State right?
>>
>>It depends on the context of your question, not on semantics.
>
> The State Department refers to "states" so the term can apply to a country
> such as Texas or a state of the union such as Texas.

Your claim is based on semantics, just as I predicted. Context, though,
remains determinative.

> There were blacks who fought for Texas independence and after the fight was
> won you enslaved them.

I didn't enslave anyone. I was born well over a 100 years later.

> Even after letters from leaders for their freedom.
> It never mentions that at the Alamo does it?

WTF does that have to do with anything in this thread, much less your
rambling posts?

Alf Christophersen wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:37:42 GMT, Richard Periut >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Green onions by themselves need to be contaminated by some person,
>>animal, or thing. Clear?
>
>
> Never heard before that onions is grown without soil ?? Soil in itself
> will provide enough C. botulinum spores to make any part of vegetables
> growing in the soil or parts where soil may be splashed onto during
> hard rain weather, to infect the plant with at least one spore. One
> spore on the skin of the plant is enough to make a population of
> living C. botulinum if conditions are there, like oxygen free
> vegetable oil in room temperature.
>



Soils that are acidic don't harbor Clostridia well.

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava
beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

"Robert" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had $100,000 at hand
> for Canadian citizenship right after the turnover to China.

That's news to me. I know of many Hong Kong nationals who came to Canada
through the Immigrant Investor or Business Entrepreneur programs but those
programs were not limited to Hong Kong nationals. Anyone with the required
amount of money (IIRC, the amounts differed depending on which programme you
applied for) who was accepted received *permanent residency* and after the
standard number of years (used to be 5, might be 3 now) could apply for
Canadian citizenship. These programs have been around since 1986 at least,
and may have existed in a different form earlier (I had HK friends who
immigrated in 1983 but I never discussed how their parents applied to come
to Canada).

rona

--
***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the inconvenience!***

"usual suspect" > wrote in message >
> First, I wrote:
> Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do
> people south of our border.
Let me repeat myself or at least let me make it clear that US citizens call
themselves "Americans", as you mentioned none of those other nations do. We
make an assumption that we ARE AMERICA.

BTW, the US has no claim on Central
> or South America, and most of North America is comprised of
> Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
>
> Then you replied:
> Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly
> that. It has the right to do what ever it wants in the
> Americas.
>
> The Monroe Doctrine is not license or right for the US "to do what ever
> [sic] it wants in the Americas." It is very specific in its scope.

Don't make me laugh as it was used in Cuba to invade that country. That
half ass invasion brought back cuban refugees.
The Monroe Doctrine has been supersided now by the Bush Doctrine. We will
invade any country if they have WMD and if we don't find any WMD then it was
justified because "they were thinking" of getting them.
>
> > Let me rephrase what you said "European
> > colonization", meaning the US lays claim to the western hemisphere
>
> Wrong. The US doesn't lay claim to the western hemisphere. It had four
> elements. First, Monroe proposed that the American continents were
> "henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by
> any European powers."

Because the US layed claim to that. You can not have two colonizing powers.
Second, he proposed that nations in the western
> hemisphere were to remain (by distinction) republics by nature rather
> than monarchies (this followed on the heels of attempts of installing an
> emperor in Mexico and elsewhere).
When did the US go to war over an emperor in Mexico?
The US Mexican war was a drumed up war to gain land for the Manifest
Destiny. The US was really conconcerned about Mexico so it liberated that
land from them so I guess that worked and saved that portion of land from
falling to an emperor.
Third, Monroe stated that the United
> States would regard as a threat to its own peace and safety any attempt
> by European powers to impose their system on any independent state in
> the western hemisphere.
Not state but Republics. More importantly what were the consequences it
those other countries if they didn't listen to the US? It would go to war
to protect it's colonies.

Finally, Monroe reaffirmed that the United
> States would not interfere in European affairs.
>
> Don't take my word for it. Go read it for yourself, dimwit:

European countries established every country known in the present day
Americas.
> http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/monrodoc.html
>
> > I was a
> > clear declaration of a US claim to the hemisphere.
>
> No, Monroe did not lay claim to the entire freaking hemisphere. The US
> was, in a sense, protector of the hemisphere, but we did not lay claim
> to it.

Protector? what a naive idiotic you are. Slavery existed under direct US
soil. No slavery in Mexico are any of the Americas. The US brought in the
slaves. I suppose they were being protected.
>
> The jobs are here, but their families aren't. Illegal immigrants siphon
> over $9 billion a year and send it home to Mexico. Labor is Mexico's
> biggest export. It benefits the Mexican economy more than ours,
> especially when you consider the impact illegals have on our education,
> welfare, and healthcare systems.
So all the Presidents who grant amnesty are idiots. They know the numbers
and all the aguments and they have all come up with the same conclusion,
both Republican and Democrat.

>
> > Your argument doesn't make sense.
>
> Ipse dixit. Why doesn't it make sense? Be specific.
>
> > Why do US presidents time after time
> > grant amnesty to illegals and render them "legal". It does two things.
1.
> > it takes away the arguement that they are "illegal"
>
> Irrelevant. That in itself isn't an argument for amnesty, and it only
> explains that an action has taken place -- but not WHY it has taken
> place. Try again.

It means they are no longer illegal but legal so those terms are
interchangable.
>
> > and 2. It pomotes and
> > encourages more "temporary illegals" to come across the border until the
> > next president makes them legal.
>
> That may (and does) happen, but that isn't WHY it happens. Try again.
>
> > That is reality and what you say is pure rhetoric and makes no sense at
all.
>
> You're a ****ing joke. I encourage you to review the following list of
> logical fallacies. See if you can figure out the ones that apply to your
> statement of "reality."

Calling me an idiot? I am not able to employ illegals nor am I able to
grant amnesty like the president so what are their reasons?

>
> >
> > A government gets it's money from the workers and the less number of
workers
> > the less money that government has to spend.

> But, again, you're just plain wrong. Revenue has nothing to do with the
> number of workers.

Ok, smart guy so why then do we need illegals here?
>
> > Illegals don't hire themselves ask Walmart.
>
> Neither does Walmart. Some of their contractors did. It's only a
> question if Walmart actually knew about it, or approved of it.
they knew about it because of bids to do the work they undercut with low
wages and go with that like any business would. They turn the other way.
area find work for
> sub-contractors in the building trades, landscaping, and other such
> labor. They do a good day's work for much less than what many others
> require, especially if union workers demanding scale. You say they don't
> hurt anyone. Tell that to someone who doesn't get as much work, if any,
> for $15 an hour because someone working off the books and here illegally
> will do the same job (and just as well) for less than minimum wage.

Socialized work. I am all for free enterprize. You want to subsidize
workers then go to Cuba.
>
> > This is the kind of double talk I am referring to. It is an illegal act
to
> > enter this country without documentation and any illegals should be
> > deported. What part don't you understand in that simple concept.
>
> I *do* understand that concept. Go ask the ****ing Supreme Court why
> *they* don't get the concept.
>
> > You even have the Supreme Court protecting illegals because they are
needed
> > here.
>
> That's *not* why the SC mandates that states apply programs to them.
>
> > Don't tell me the Supreme Court had to make that ruling as they could
> > have ruled any way they wanted.
>
> Actually, I'd say that they're supposed to rule on the basis of the
> Constitution, but it's clear that they don't do that very often.
>
> > Did they ever rule slavery as
> > unconstitutional? No.
>
> Irrelevant issue.
>
> > They had to have come to a conclusion that illegals
> > are needed here for the cheap labor and therefore their children had a
right
> > to go to school. There is no other way to see that.
>
> Yes there is: the right way. The Supreme Court has based their decisions
> about illegal immigrants (children and adults) on case law, not on
> economic necessity. See PLYER V DOE, 1982. The Court's decision was
> based on equal protection of individuals.

Yes, equal protection of mexican citizens. It's hard to give a person US
rights if they are deported and not even in the states. Lets see what if we
place them in Guantanamo base do they still have rights? No, the courts
ruled so you deport them. Are deportations illegal?
You are full of it.
>
> >>>Medical care, we don't want
> >>>infectious diseases spread
> >>
> >>That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal aliens. They
> >>could receive such care in their native countries and await visas and
> >>come here legally.
> >
> > That's true so why do we provide it then?
>
> Hospitals used to deny medical care to illegal aliens. One of them sued
> a hospital. The case went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that
> aliens were ENTITLED to the same treatment as legal citizens. I don't
> recall any of the relevant cases, but I believe most of them use PLYER
> as precedent and use the same equal protection finding.

No distinction between legal and illegal my point exactly.

> We used to deport pregnant women. Border officials still try to herd
> pregnant women back across the border. Once they're here, and once they
> give birth, their child is a ticket to welfare and other benefits, as
> well as citizenship for the entire family.

I thought they were taking jobs. Which is it? Are they all on Welfare or
are they taking jobs away from citizens?
You want to have it both ways just as long as it is ethnocentric in origin
for you.

> > That is my
> > whole point as there is no difference in the courts or out in the
streets as
> > to illegal vs legal immigration. That is by intent not initiated by the
> > illegals but by the US.
>
> Bullshit, ipse dixit.
Yea, I meant to say the BS you say mainly "equal protection". What a bunch
of legal double talk.
>
> >>>Most
> >>>of these people are working the money goes into the federal withholding
> > that
> >>>they never see again.
> >>
> >>They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have processes for
> >>legal immigration. They're in violation of our laws.

Wrong! They have equal protection moron so what laws are they violating two
face. Is it against the law for them to apply for medical benefits?
> First, the Court doesn't enforce laws; the Court interprets laws. The
> Supreme Court has never made a finding that our immigration laws are
> unconstitutional, nitwit. They HAVE found, for whatever reason(s), that
> entitlement programs must be operated without respect for legal status.
> Many of us find that inconsistent, as well as very expensive. I
> encourage you to read about immigration issues. The following site has
> some very helpful information, but they *are* activists who want less
> (not zero) immigration.

It doesn't matter what you want or what I want, it is driven by market
forces.
> Stop making up shit, you ignorant ****. Name one government program
> which *encourages* illegals to apply for healthcare assistance for TB or
> anything else.
Brochers written in Spanish and taken to Camp sites by Public Health
Officers moron. They even have doctors visit them on occasion if Public
Health personal deem it necessary. Looks like you completely forgot about
equal protection and protecting the public in matters of Public Health.

>
> Illegals usually wait until something's gone out of hand to go to an
> emergency room. They're afraid of deportation.
Which is it? They are afraid to go and apply for services because they
might get caught or as you stated earlier that they apply for every benefit
including Welfare? Again, you want it both ways just as long as it conforms
to your arguments.

They're reliance on
> EMERGENCY ROOMS is at the heart of the problem.
They should go to public health clinics or public health hospitals.
One-third of the Texas
> state budget now goes for public health care expenses. ER bills of
> aliens are usually picked up by taxpayers. States aren't reimbursed for
> this by the feds.

And the answer is to go to them as the public health officers do and inform
them that they can not be deported for health concerns and the cost will
decrease for hospitals. That is the Aim of Publich Health Departments.
>
>
> >>>If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the border
patrol,
> >>
> >>He used to do that.

Lets see here the Courts don't enforce the laws bright one and now you tell
me police don't. You really make me look stupid with your intelect.
>
> Not bull, you bitch. I live about 200 miles from the border. Parts of my
> city are no longer distinguishable as an American city. Every
> convenience store does Mexico cash transfers for illegals. Many citizens
> are turned away from ERs this time of year because the illegals have
> inundated them. Etc.

That's pretty lame, now you are telling me it's not equal protection but
illegals have priority over citizens there.
I find that hard to believe that a city close to Mexico doesn't look like an
American city. Some even have Spanish I'll bet, that's pretty shocking. The
brown hords inundating you.
'
> > Every Governor in the history of the state has asked for presidential
legal
> > amnesty especially during the boycott years.
>
> Ipse dixit.
>
> > You got to be kidding.
>
> No, I'm not. You haven't supported any of your bullshit >
> > Let's see give an illegal a ten year prison term and how much would that
> > cost at $20,000 a year.
>
> Idiot. We don't imprison illegals unless they commit other crimes. We
> deport them.
>
> >>No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with green cards
> >>(meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from migrant farm workers.
> >
> > Now you got it, they are legal because they were granted legal status by
the president.
> > sign of the presidential pen.
>
> No, clueless dolt. They have green cards because they go through INS
> processing. You're confusing green cards and visas with amnesty. A green
> card isn't amnesty. It's a legitimate step to citizenship.
>
> http://www.us-immigration.org/
>
> >>>Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United Farm Workers
> > Union
> >>>and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
> >>
> >>What's your source for this information?
> >
above, so I
> don't expect you to support any below.
>
> > I marched with Mr Chavez.
>
> Sure you did.
>
> > There was no protection
> > of union organizers and if you didn't know that Mr Conservative did not
like
> > unions.
>
> He was president of one, asshole. It was called the Screen Actors Guild.

President Reagan, after his experience as Gov of California, proudly signed
an amnesty giving millions of undocumented aliens legal status. Make no
mistake about that.
> Maybe you forgot that while emoting over shit you don't comprehend.
>
> > Let me give you a clue here as most Republican conservatives don't
> > like unions. Shocking isn't it.
>
> Why did all those union voters overwhelmingly vote for Reagan in '80 and
> '84?
>
> > Here's another hint, Bobby Kennedy marched with us and he was not a
> > Republican like Reagan. Here's another shocker, Democrats like unions.
>
> Why do Democrats raise taxes on union workers so much?
Don't like the observations OK then switch the two and then start laughing
at how dumb it would sound. Here's some of your skewed view, most media is
conservative and not liberal. No, see how dumb that sounds.

> You're wrong regardless. Reagan was president of SAG, a union. He had
> nothing against them. Many union members are Republican, and they help
> elect GOP candidates. Democrats like unions because those high union
> wages are taxable despite all the fawning about being for the common man.

Yea sure, most unions and union members are Republicans. LOL.

> > There were blacks who fought for Texas independence and after the fight
was
> > won you enslaved them.
>
> I didn't enslave anyone. I was born well over a 100 years later.

You are a slave of your own ethnocentric view. Go to the Alamo and don't
forget to take your hat off to those great heroes who brought slavery to the
Republic of Texas.
>
> > Even after letters from leaders for their freedom.
> > It never mentions that at the Alamo does it?
>
> WTF does that have to do with anything in this thread, much less your
> rambling posts?

YOU DON"T LIKE MEXICANS. Most of it is hand me downs from the Alamo.
Mexicans are treated like shit in Texas because of it.
Thank God you stopped lynching them. All that's left is pseudo logic trying
to hide your racist view. Just be honest and say you hate Mexicans and send
them all back and then your city will look more "American".

"Rona Yuthasastrakosol" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had $100,000 at
hand
> > for Canadian citizenship right after the turnover to China.
>
> That's news to me. I know of many Hong Kong nationals who came to Canada
> through the Immigrant Investor or Business Entrepreneur programs but those
> programs were not limited to Hong Kong nationals. Anyone with the
required
> amount of money (IIRC, the amounts differed depending on which programme
you
> applied for) who was accepted received *permanent residency* and after the
> standard number of years (used to be 5, might be 3 now) could apply for
> Canadian citizenship. These programs have been around since 1986 at
least,
> and may have existed in a different form earlier (I had HK friends who
> immigrated in 1983 but I never discussed how their parents applied to come
> to Canada).
>
> rona
>
That's the program and it was written up here in the context of Hong Kong
just before the hand over as many HK people were getting nervous. The
impression by the article was one in which a person can buy Canadian
citizenship or legal status.

> --
> ***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the inconvenience!***
>
>

Rona Yuthasastrakosol wrote:
>>Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had $100,000 at hand
>>for Canadian citizenship right after the turnover to China.
>
> That's news to me. I know of many Hong Kong nationals who came to Canada
> through the Immigrant Investor or Business Entrepreneur programs but those
> programs were not limited to Hong Kong nationals. Anyone with the required
> amount of money (IIRC, the amounts differed depending on which programme you
> applied for) who was accepted received *permanent residency* and after the
> standard number of years (used to be 5, might be 3 now) could apply for
> Canadian citizenship. These programs have been around since 1986 at least,
> and may have existed in a different form earlier (I had HK friends who
> immigrated in 1983 but I never discussed how their parents applied to come
> to Canada).

Robert shoots from the hip and never offers evidence for his outlandish
claims. I found the following information online which supports your
recollections.

Immigrants from Hong Kong

Between 1988 and 1993, the number of immigrants that arrived in
Canada from Hong Kong was 125,000. They are here because of the
perceived political uncertainty that may arise when Hong Kong
reverts back to China this year. To Hong Kongers, Canada is a
safe place to raise a family and a good place to invest in.

In 1993, only about 3,500 out of a total of 33,769 Hong Kong
immigrants entered Canada under the Business Immigration
Program, which means that most of them came under the Family
Class. Under the Family Class, Canadian Citizens and permanent
residents who are 19 and over and living in Canada, can sponsor
the applications of some close relatives or dependents who wish
to immigrate to Canada.

Other Hong Kong immigrants come under the Business Immigration
Program. There are several categories where these people could
fall under. Most of them are either Entrepreneurs or Investors.
Entrepreneurs are granted a visa if they invest a minimum of
$250,000 in the country and create jobs, and take upon a
managerial role in their business. Investors, on the other hand, can
take a more passive, but also a more expensive role by
investing $250,000-$500,000 (depending on which province they
will invest) in the country for a minimum of five years.

Most newcomers from Hong Kong flock to Toronto, Vancouver, or
Montreal. Others prefer to go to Calgary or Edmonton. Unlike the
immigrants of the last century, many of the newcomers from Hong
Kong today are well-educated professionals
http://www.interlog.com/~fccs/immigration.htm

More information about the BIP can be found at the following link:
http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/english/business/index.html

**************
Note to Robert: You've yet to make a point that sticks. I also see
you've replied to my posts. What kind of crap did you make up this time?

pendejo estupido wrote:
>>First, I wrote:
>>Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do
>>people south of our border.
>
> Let me repeat myself or at least let me make it clear

Repeating your incoherent bullshit doesn't clarify anything.

> that US citizens call
> themselves "Americans", as you mentioned none of those other nations do. We
> make an assumption that we ARE AMERICA.

That's the kind of sophistry one only expects to hear at closing time.
Shame a tee-totaler like me has to endure it.

> BTW, the US has no claim on Central
>>or South America, and most of North America is comprised of
>>Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
>>
>>Then you replied:
>>Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said exactly
>>that. It has the right to do what ever it wants in the
>>Americas.
>>
>>The Monroe Doctrine is not license or right for the US "to do what ever
>>[sic] it wants in the Americas." It is very specific in its scope.
>
> Don't make me laugh as it was used in Cuba to invade that country. That
> half ass invasion brought back cuban refugees.

WTF are you talking about now?

> The Monroe Doctrine has been supersided now by the Bush Doctrine.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

<snip>
>>>Let me rephrase what you said "European
>>>colonization", meaning the US lays claim to the western hemisphere
>>
>>Wrong. The US doesn't lay claim to the western hemisphere. It had four
>>elements. First, Monroe proposed that the American continents were
>>"henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by
>>any European powers."
>
> Because the US layed claim to that. You can not have two colonizing powers.

The US wasn't colonizing other nations in the western hemisphere, idiot.

> Second, he proposed that nations in the western
>>hemisphere were to remain (by distinction) republics by nature rather
>>than monarchies (this followed on the heels of attempts of installing an
>>emperor in Mexico and elsewhere).
>
> When did the US go to war over an emperor in Mexico?
> The US Mexican war was a drumed up war to gain land for the Manifest
> Destiny. The US was really conconcerned about Mexico so it liberated that
> land from them so I guess that worked and saved that portion of land from
> falling to an emperor.

You don't comprehend the Monroe Doctrine, Texas Independence,
immigration law, or anything else we've discussed. I don't expect you to
grasp the French intervention in Mexico OR the US-Mexican War.


> Third, Monroe stated that the United
>>States would regard as a threat to its own peace and safety any attempt
>>by European powers to impose their system on any independent state in
>>the western hemisphere.
>
> Not state but Republics. More importantly what were the consequences it
> those other countries if they didn't listen to the US? It would go to war
> to protect it's colonies.

Wrong, you idiot. Mexico was not and never has been a US colony. Nor has
Canada, the Bahamas, the Turks and Caicos, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras,
Belize (fomerly known as British Honduras), El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, or Panama, nor any nation/state in South America. We only
have territories in the Caribbean like Puerto Rico and the USVI. We also
have use of the port at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a condition of ending
the Spanish-American War.

> Finally, Monroe reaffirmed that the United
>>States would not interfere in European affairs.
>>
>>Don't take my word for it. Go read it for yourself, dimwit:
>
> European countries established every country known in the present day
> Americas.

Explain that to your drinking buddies. They might be more impressed by
your insight than I am.

>>http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/monrodoc.html
>>
>>>I was a
>>>clear declaration of a US claim to the hemisphere.
>>
>>No, Monroe did not lay claim to the entire freaking hemisphere. The US
>>was, in a sense, protector of the hemisphere, but we did not lay claim
>>to it.
>
> Protector? what a naive idiotic you are.

And what a semi-literate, low-grade moron you are.

> Slavery existed under direct US
> soil. No slavery in Mexico are any of the Americas. The US brought in the
> slaves. I suppose they were being protected.

Irrelevant issue. The Monroe Doctrine applied to nations, not individuals.

>>The jobs are here, but their families aren't. Illegal immigrants siphon
>>over $9 billion a year and send it home to Mexico. Labor is Mexico's
>>biggest export. It benefits the Mexican economy more than ours,
>>especially when you consider the impact illegals have on our education,
>>welfare, and healthcare systems.
>
> So all the Presidents who grant amnesty are idiots. They know the numbers
> and all the aguments and they have all come up with the same conclusion,
> both Republican and Democrat.

Stop making it up as you go along. You can do that at the bar with your
drunken friends, but that won't float here. The Houston Chronicle ran a
series on the amnesty issue after its first decade. The introduction starts:
It was a grand experiment. Invite millions of illegal
immigrants out of their hidden world, then slam the door shut on
those who would follow. But 10 years later, the Mexican border
remains porous. And while some who accepted the government's
amnesty offer flourish, hundreds of thousands came out of the
shadows only to vanish again in America's dead-end culture of
urban poverty.
http://www.chron.com/content/interac...y/english.html

A little hisory lesson for you. The *law* -- not some piece of
Presidential fiat as you suggest -- was the 1986 Immigration Reform and
Control Act. It was an act of Congress which President Reagan signed
into law. Like many other policies of the 1980s, the Democrats (who ran
the House of Representatives) promised future border control in exchange
for amnesty. The law granted amnesty to illegals who could document that
they'd been in the US for at least ten years (among other things, like
functioning in society by holding jobs). The immediate effect for the
Democrats is they'd have more ethnic minorities in their voting block.
It also freed up Border Patrol and INS to actually enforce the borders
rather than investigate people who'd been here working for a number of
years.

I encourage you to read the series. I also ecourage you to read more
about the amnesty issue before shooting from your hip.

>>>Your argument doesn't make sense.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. Why doesn't it make sense? Be specific.
>>
>>
>>>Why do US presidents time after time
>>>grant amnesty to illegals and render them "legal". It does two things.
>
> 1.
>>>it takes away the arguement that they are "illegal"
>>
>>Irrelevant. That in itself isn't an argument for amnesty, and it only
>>explains that an action has taken place -- but not WHY it has taken
>>place. Try again.
>
> It means they are no longer illegal but legal so those terms are
> interchangable.

No. Try again.

>>>and 2. It pomotes and
>>>encourages more "temporary illegals" to come across the border until the
>>>next president makes them legal.
>>
>>That may (and does) happen, but that isn't WHY it happens. Try again.
>>
>>
>>>That is reality and what you say is pure rhetoric and makes no sense at
> all.
>
>>You're a ****ing joke. I encourage you to review the following list of
>>logical fallacies. See if you can figure out the ones that apply to your
>>statement of "reality."
>
> Calling me an idiot?

Yes. A big, fat idiot.

> I am not able to employ illegals nor am I able to
> grant amnesty like the president so what are their reasons?

The text of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act is available
online. Perhaps you can read it and see what Congress had in mind, and
compare it to what Congress has actually done about the "Control" part
of the law. Hint: They backed away from it, just as they backed away
from the future spending cuts they promised when they passed the Tax
Reform acts.

>>>A government gets it's money from the workers and the less number of
> workers
>>>the less money that government has to spend.
>
>>But, again, you're just plain wrong. Revenue has nothing to do with the
>>number of workers.
>
> Ok, smart guy so why then do we need illegals here?

We don't. In the aggregate, they drain every aspect of the system.
Individually, many of them do very good work and very low wages. We need
to find ways to encourage that part of it without opening our borders to
those who'll drain social services.

>>>Illegals don't hire themselves ask Walmart.
>>
>>Neither does Walmart. Some of their contractors did. It's only a
>>question if Walmart actually knew about it, or approved of it.
>
> they knew about it

Prove it, jerk off. The Justice Department is investigating now, but
nobody's proven anything yet.

> because of bids to do the work they undercut with low
> wages and go with that like any business would. They turn the other way.

Maybe you can help INS and DoJ sort it out then, Robert.

> area find work for
>>sub-contractors in the building trades, landscaping, and other such
>>labor. They do a good day's work for much less than what many others
>>require, especially if union workers demanding scale. You say they don't
>>hurt anyone. Tell that to someone who doesn't get as much work, if any,
>>for $15 an hour because someone working off the books and here illegally
>>will do the same job (and just as well) for less than minimum wage.
>
> Socialized work.

It isn't socialized. Either situation ($5 immigrant of $15 union guy) is
a voluntary exchange between worker and employer.

> I am all for free enterprize.

Good, even though you can't spell it.

> You want to subsidize workers then go to Cuba.

Strawman.

>>>This is the kind of double talk I am referring to. It is an illegal act
> to
>>>enter this country without documentation and any illegals should be
>>>deported. What part don't you understand in that simple concept.
>>
>>I *do* understand that concept. Go ask the ****ing Supreme Court why
>>*they* don't get the concept.
>>
>>>You even have the Supreme Court protecting illegals because they are
> needed
>>>here.
>>
>>That's *not* why the SC mandates that states apply programs to them.
>>
>>
>>>Don't tell me the Supreme Court had to make that ruling as they could
>>>have ruled any way they wanted.
>>
>>Actually, I'd say that they're supposed to rule on the basis of the
>>Constitution, but it's clear that they don't do that very often.
>>
>>
>>>Did they ever rule slavery as
>>>unconstitutional? No.
>>
>>Irrelevant issue.
>>
>>
>>>They had to have come to a conclusion that illegals
>>>are needed here for the cheap labor and therefore their children had a
> right
>>>to go to school. There is no other way to see that.
>>
>>Yes there is: the right way. The Supreme Court has based their decisions
>>about illegal immigrants (children and adults) on case law, not on
>>economic necessity. See PLYER V DOE, 1982. The Court's decision was
>>based on equal protection of individuals.
>
> Yes, equal protection of mexican citizens.

No, you dork. PLYER is predicated on the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to discrimination (not nationality
or economic necessity). The Court found that the part of the Fourteenth
Amendment that applied ("...nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") had no regard for legal
status of those within a jurisdiction. The part that's infuriated
scholars and citizens is the first part of that section of the amendment
says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the state wherein they reside."

> It's hard to give a person US
> rights if they are deported and not even in the states.

That has NO bearing on the PLYER decision. Go read it yourself, numbnuts.

> Lets see what if we
> place them in Guantanamo base do they still have rights? No, the courts
> ruled so you deport them. Are deportations illegal?
> You are full of it.

Read the ****ing decision yourself, loser.

>>>>>Medical care, we don't want
>>>>>infectious diseases spread
>>>>
>>>>That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal aliens. They
>>>>could receive such care in their native countries and await visas and
>>>>come here legally.
>>>
>>>That's true so why do we provide it then?
>>
>>Hospitals used to deny medical care to illegal aliens. One of them sued
>>a hospital. The case went to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that
>>aliens were ENTITLED to the same treatment as legal citizens. I don't
>>recall any of the relevant cases, but I believe most of them use PLYER
>>as precedent and use the same equal protection finding.
>
> No distinction between legal and illegal my point exactly.

You're talking out of your big fat ass. That wasn't your point. Look
above. I left your comments intact.

>>We used to deport pregnant women. Border officials still try to herd
>>pregnant women back across the border. Once they're here, and once they
>>give birth, their child is a ticket to welfare and other benefits, as
>>well as citizenship for the entire family.
>
> I thought they were taking jobs. Which is it? Are they all on Welfare or
> are they taking jobs away from citizens?

Both...
http://www.chron.com/content/interac...y/english.html

> You want to have it both ways just as long as it is ethnocentric in origin
> for you.

We have laws, we should enforce them; if we're not going to enforce
them, change them and disband the agencies charged with enforcement.
That's the "both ways" I seek.

>>>That is my
>>>whole point as there is no difference in the courts or out in the
> streets as
>>>to illegal vs legal immigration. That is by intent not initiated by the
>>>illegals but by the US.
>>
>>Bullshit, ipse dixit.
>
> Yea, I meant to say the BS you say mainly "equal protection". What a bunch
> of legal double talk.

Take it up with the '82 Supreme Court. Some of those people are dead,
but a couple are still there.

>>>>>Most
>>>>>of these people are working the money goes into the federal withholding
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>>they never see again.
>>>>
>>>>They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have processes for
>>>>legal immigration. They're in violation of our laws.
>
> Wrong!

No, I'm right.

> They have equal protection moron so what laws are they violating two
> face.

Equal protection only applies to programs like education and health
care, you retard, NOT to immigration law itself.

> Is it against the law for them to apply for medical benefits?

Under the host of SC rulings on the matter based on the equal protection
clause, no.

>>First, the Court doesn't enforce laws; the Court interprets laws. The
>>Supreme Court has never made a finding that our immigration laws are
>>unconstitutional, nitwit. They HAVE found, for whatever reason(s), that
>>entitlement programs must be operated without respect for legal status.
>>Many of us find that inconsistent, as well as very expensive. I
>>encourage you to read about immigration issues. The following site has
>>some very helpful information, but they *are* activists who want less
>>(not zero) immigration.
>
> It doesn't matter what you want or what I want,

Yes it does. We live in a free country, where we elect officials and
hold them accountable for what we want.

> it is driven by market forces.

Immigration is driven by a variety of factors. The "market force"
argument is interesting because open borders would have the effect of
reducing wages even further. That won't increase SS tax revenues.

>>Stop making up shit, you ignorant ****. Name one government program
>>which *encourages* illegals to apply for healthcare assistance for TB or
>>anything else.
>
> Brochers

Brochures.

> written in Spanish and taken to Camp sites by Public Health
> Officers moron.

Show me one that says, "Welcome to our country. Please come see a doctor
because you might have TB."

> They even have doctors visit them on occasion if Public
> Health personal deem it necessary.

Where?

> Looks like you completely forgot about
> equal protection and protecting the public in matters of Public Health.

No, it looks like you're ignorant about the whole subject -- just like
everything else you shoot your mouth off about.

>>Illegals usually wait until something's gone out of hand to go to an
>>emergency room. They're afraid of deportation.
>
> Which is it? They are afraid to go and apply for services because they
> might get caught or as you stated earlier that they apply for every benefit
> including Welfare? Again, you want it both ways just as long as it conforms
> to your arguments.

No, they don't apply for welfare until they have a child here.

http://www.visalaw.com/03mar3/14mar303.html
http://www.onlineathens.com/1997/112...3.a3immig.html

Etc.

> Their reliance on
>>EMERGENCY ROOMS is at the heart of the problem.
>
> They should go to public health clinics or public health hospitals.

That's the problem. WHO PAYS THE ****ING BILL AT PUBLIC HEALTH
FACILITIES? Taxpayers.

> One-third of the Texas
>>state budget now goes for public health care expenses. ER bills of
>>aliens are usually picked up by taxpayers. States aren't reimbursed for
>>this by the feds.
>
> And the answer is to go to them as the public health officers do and inform
> them that they can not be deported for health concerns and the cost will
> decrease for hospitals. That is the Aim of Publich Health Departments.

Ipse dixit. You don't know anything about this. It's just like your BS
about Monroe Doctrine and everything else.

>>>>>If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the border
> patrol,
>>>>He used to do that.
>
> Lets see here the Courts don't enforce the laws bright one and now you tell
> me police don't.

Courts interpret and apply laws. Police enforce them. The present
situation with immigration is that we have one set of laws which say
people have to go through a process to come here and work; most of them
forego that process and come here anyway; the Courts have ruled that
once they're here, we have to treat their children without regard for
other laws and taxpayers must foot the bill; police in most
jurisdictions, especially in border states like Texas and California,
don't have the resources to do the grunt work for INS. The situation is
complex, but mainly for a two simple reasons. First, the SC in its
infinite wisdom has made rulings which say we must apply programs
equally, even to lawbreakers and their children. Second, Congress has
never exercised its responsibility with respect to the "Control" part of
the act they passed in 1986.

> You really make me look stupid with your intelect.

Intellect. But you're correct. You don't comprehend SIMPLE concepts very
well, and you're completely lost when more complex ones like immigration
arise.

>>Not bull, you bitch. I live about 200 miles from the border. Parts of my
>>city are no longer distinguishable as an American city. Every
>>convenience store does Mexico cash transfers for illegals. Many citizens
>>are turned away from ERs this time of year because the illegals have
>>inundated them. Etc.
>
> That's pretty lame,

It's more lame that you can't comprehend what you read, or better yet,
that you make up shit as you go along.

> now you are telling me it's not equal protection but
> illegals have priority over citizens there.

I didn't say they have priority, I alluded to the fact that they've
overburdened the system. They're not here legally, but they can get
served and use up time and resources intended for legal citizens and
resident aliens -- those who go through legal channels to be here.

> I find that hard to believe that a city close to Mexico doesn't look like an
> American city. Some even have Spanish I'll bet, that's pretty shocking. The
> brown hords inundating you.

I think you'd be stunned at the changes that have occurred to various
parts of the city in just five years. It's not the brown part that's the
problem. It's the illegal part. They don't respect immigration laws, and
they often don't respect any of the other ones.

>>>Every Governor in the history of the state has asked for presidential
> legal
>>>amnesty especially during the boycott years.
>>
>>Ipse dixit.
>>
>>
>>>You got to be kidding.
>>
>>No, I'm not. You haven't supported any of your bullshit >
>>
>>>Let's see give an illegal a ten year prison term and how much would that
>>>cost at $20,000 a year.
>>
>>Idiot. We don't imprison illegals unless they commit other crimes. We
>>deport them.
>>
>>
>>>>No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with green cards
>>>>(meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from migrant farm workers.
>>>
>>>Now you got it, they are legal because they were granted legal status by
> the president.
>>>sign of the presidential pen.
>>
>>No, clueless dolt. They have green cards because they go through INS
>>processing. You're confusing green cards and visas with amnesty. A green
>>card isn't amnesty. It's a legitimate step to citizenship.
>>
>>http://www.us-immigration.org/
>>
>>
>>>>>Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United Farm Workers
>>>Union
>>>>>and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
>>>>
>>>>What's your source for this information?
>>>
> above, so I
>
>>don't expect you to support any below.
>>
>>
>>>I marched with Mr Chavez.
>>
>>Sure you did.
>>
>>
>>>There was no protection
>>>of union organizers and if you didn't know that Mr Conservative did not
> like
>>>unions.
>>
>>He was president of one, asshole. It was called the Screen Actors Guild.
>
> President Reagan,

WAS PRESIDENT OF A UNION. Stick to the facts. You ****ed up. Admit it.
Yuu stupidly wrote that he didn't like unions, yet he was AND REMAINS a
member of one and even served as its president. You complete goof.

> after his experience as Gov of California, proudly signed
> an amnesty giving millions of undocumented aliens legal status.

He signed a law passed by Congress, which was to reform and control
immigration; it wasn't simply amnesty. Congress included future
immigration CONTROL in that law, and that control has never been
implemented.

> Make no mistake about that.

I haven't. You've conveniently forgotten the scope of the actual law he
signed. It was much more than amnesty, it was a promise to CONTROL
immigration.

>>Maybe you forgot that while emoting over shit you don't comprehend.
>>
>>
>>>Let me give you a clue here as most Republican conservatives don't
>>>like unions. Shocking isn't it.
>>
>>Why did all those union voters overwhelmingly vote for Reagan in '80 and
>>'84?
>>
>>>Here's another hint, Bobby Kennedy marched with us and he was not a
>>>Republican like Reagan. Here's another shocker, Democrats like unions.
>>
>>Why do Democrats raise taxes on union workers so much?
>
> Don't like the observations OK then switch the two and then start laughing
> at how dumb it would sound.

You raised the union issue, you ****ed it all up, and it had absolutely
no relevance to the discussion. Bobby Kennedy doesn't care about unions
anymore.

> Here's some of your skewed view, most media is
> conservative and not liberal. No, see how dumb that sounds.

I agree, you sound pretty dumb.

>>You're wrong regardless. Reagan was president of SAG, a union. He had
>>nothing against them. Many union members are Republican, and they help
>>elect GOP candidates. Democrats like unions because those high union
>>wages are taxable despite all the fawning about being for the common man.
>
> Yea sure, most unions and union members are Republicans. LOL.

Many union members are Republican. Indeed, they're legally entitled to
refund of dues spent for the benefit of tax-raising Democrats and other
leftwing issue campaigns (e.g., anti-NAFTA ads, etc.).

http://groups.msn.com/RepublicanUnionMembersFriends
http://www.coaflcio.org/republicans.htm
http://www.ufcw7.com/political%20Issues.htm (scroll down to the RLC thing)
http://www.aft.org/publications/ps_r...03/caucus.html

>>>There were blacks who fought for Texas independence and after the fight
> was
>>>won you enslaved them.
>>
>>I didn't enslave anyone. I was born well over a 100 years later.
>
> You are a slave of your own ethnocentric view.

Which view is that, asshole? I'm interracial.

> Go to the Alamo

I go at least once a year.

> and don't forget to take your hat off

I don't wear one.

> to those great heroes who brought slavery to the
> Republic of Texas.

They brought a lot more things to Texas. Including freedom.

>>>Even after letters from leaders for their freedom.
>>>It never mentions that at the Alamo does it?
>>
>>WTF does that have to do with anything in this thread, much less your
>>rambling posts?
>
>
> YOU DON"T LIKE MEXICANS.

¿Qué? Mi familia es bastante.

> Most of it is hand me downs from the Alamo.
> Mexicans are treated like shit in Texas because of it.

You've apparently never been to Texas.

> Thank God you stopped lynching them. All that's left is pseudo logic trying
> to hide your racist view. Just be honest and say you hate Mexicans and send
> them all back and then your city will look more "American".

Go **** yourself, pendejo.

usual suspect > wrote in message >.. .
> Ignorant wrote:
> > A government gets it's money from the workers and the less number of workers
> > the less money that government has to spend.
>
> Only if it collects x amount per worker. That's not how our system
> works. It's based on a "progressive" tax which generally punishes
> achievement and encourages sloth. Revenues are a function of tax rates
> in relation to economic activity. Increased levels of economic activity
> combined with lower tax rates (which usually spurs economic activity)
> can produce more revenue than higher tax rates (which usually slow down
> economic activity) and a slower economy. JFK and Reagan both cut tax
> rates, and net revenues increased as a result of the economic activity
> which followed in each instance. We've also seen the same effect with
> the tax rebates in the last couple years, particularly in the last quarter.

In the case of Reagan, real income tax revenue was lower in each of
the first 5 years after the tax cut than the year before. Revenue
jumped in year 6, but only because loopholes were closed. Economic
activity, as measured by the GDP growth rate, was not any faster after
Reagan's tax cut than it had been historically, or even in the
business cycle just prior to the tax cut.

As far as Bush's tax cuts goes, the jury is out. Revenue is way down.
The GDP growth rate since the first tax cut has been about 1%-point
lower than either the historical average or the previous business
cycle. But, it is too early to make conclusions because we are only
in the beginning of an expansion.

Josh Rosenbluth

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>A government gets it's money from the workers and the less number of workers
>>>the less money that government has to spend.
>>
>>Only if it collects x amount per worker. That's not how our system
>>works. It's based on a "progressive" tax which generally punishes
>>achievement and encourages sloth. Revenues are a function of tax rates
>>in relation to economic activity. Increased levels of economic activity
>>combined with lower tax rates (which usually spurs economic activity)
>>can produce more revenue than higher tax rates (which usually slow down
>>economic activity) and a slower economy. JFK and Reagan both cut tax
>>rates, and net revenues increased as a result of the economic activity
>>which followed in each instance. We've also seen the same effect with
>>the tax rebates in the last couple years, particularly in the last quarter.

I stand by what I wrote, particularly in the context of the OP's
benighted statements. Since you took the time to reply, I'll address
your statements.

> In the case of Reagan, real income tax revenue was lower in each of
> the first 5 years after the tax cut than the year before.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif

And before you whine about Heritage Foundation being right-wing, the
data are from OMB.

> Revenue
> jumped in year 6, but only because loopholes were closed.

TEFRA had *some* effect, but steady economic expansion had a greater effect.

> Economic
> activity, as measured by the GDP growth rate, was not any faster after
> Reagan's tax cut than it had been historically,

It was a lot higher than it had been under the previous administration.
Two factors for that: lower interest rates and a rebounding economy.

> or even in the
> business cycle just prior to the tax cut.

Which isn't saying much considering Carter's malaise.

> As far as Bush's tax cuts goes, the jury is out. Revenue is way down.

A function of the 1999-2001 recession, which was compounded by the
economic slowdown following 9/11.

> The GDP growth rate since the first tax cut has been about 1%-point
> lower than either the historical average or the previous business
> cycle.

Yes, and there are some unique exogenous variables to account for that,
not the least of which is the terrorist activity which caused a lot of
Americans to stop going out in public as much as they had before.

> But, it is too early to make conclusions because we are only
> in the beginning of an expansion.

Yes, and how fast did GDP grow last quarter? Try 7.2%, which is the
largest gain in any quarter since the mid-80s when you suggest the
economy didn't expand. The quarter before last, GDP grew 3.3%. PCE
(personal consumption expenditures) -- the primary cause of much of the
slow-down in 2001-2 -- is leading the way. Jobs are a lagging indicator,
and there's some encouraging news there. You can wait to make your
conclusions, but apparently employers and those who got tax rebates are
reaching their own without you.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:01:55 GMT, Richard Periut >
wrote:

>Soils that are acidic don't harbor Clostridia well.

You are talking about living Clostridia. I'm talking about non-living
spores that will awake when the soil becomes soggy and oxygen free and
other conditions fit well.
Spores may be viable for thousands of years unless a forest fire
disinfict the soil by burning it.


When producing "rakaure" (fermented trout) there is one 100% sure way
to infect the fish with C. botulinum, let any utensils that becomes
ever in touch with the fish touch ground of any kind. That infects the
fish with enough number of spores to make it highly toxic during the
autolysis of the fish. The fish and the flesh is sterile until the
knife using to remove the intestines is touching ground. Then there
are at least one spore of C. botulinum present, and autolysis end up
in C. botulinum production instead.
Some producers infect the fish by will with Acetobacter strains or
other lactic acid producing bacteria, but that is in fact a
falsification. It is harmless and prevent C. botulinum production by
lowering pH much faster than autolysis will, but it is not the old
tradition. Which is gutting the mountain trouts and placing the head
by tail with opened gut up, strewing some salt over the fish in a
wooden bucket (sterilized) and then fill with a next layer of fish, in
opposite direction of the previous layer. That is continued until
bucket is full, then a lid is put on and the fish is put under
pressure for some time and then is resting in the cold until sold. But
there should not be any freezing temperature.
It is a Christmas delicacy, but now and then there are some bad fishes
that reach market, and there is a note of people being ill by C.
botulinum. Since eating rakaure is a usual habit in Norway, all
hospitals has a depot of antisera against C. botulinum intoxication
and noone has been killed by it the last 15 year or so, but about 15
people has been ill by it. Compared to about 1 million annually eating
the fish, the intoxication rate is rather low.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> pendejo estupido wrote:
> >>First, I wrote:
> >>Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do
> >>people south of our border.
> >
> > Let me repeat myself or at least let me make it clear
>
> Repeating your incoherent bullshit doesn't clarify anything.
>
> > that US citizens call
> > themselves "Americans", as you mentioned none of those other nations do.
We
> > make an assumption that we ARE AMERICA.
>
> That's the kind of sophistry one only expects to hear at closing time.
> Shame a tee-totaler like me has to endure it.

Your responses are getting more silly so theres no point in taking it to an
8 year olds level.

There have many programs including taking many mexican nationals under the
"bracero program" and placing them in the fields of the US in the early
years. These were "Mexican nationals", in an effort to supply the farm
labor d needed by the US.
Because of the rhetoric you bring, many want that program started once more
so in ten years they can grant those people amnesty also.
The program worked well but they never went back home after many years here.
That's when the amnessty program started for the illegals and it wasn't
President Reagan who started it. There have been many presidents before him
and many after him that have amnesty or programs for illegals rendering
those arguments dead.
The legal system and all the social services have conformed to that fact
that the illegal will in time become legal and not deported. That is why he
has rights as if he is deported he has no US rights in Mexico.
The Unions are considered special interest groups by the Republicans and
most Unions have never given their support to them. Ask Gov S who attacked
every specials interest group "Union" and won't talk to any.
Reagan was one of the most anti-Union pres you could want. He was big
business gave the rich everything they wanted, sprinkle down economics. To s
ay he was proUnion is stupid.