PDA

View Full Version : Oh boy......



Qtec
06-24-2011, 01:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Georgia Immigration Law Already Hurting Farmers</span>

“It might almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jay Bookman writes of the horrendous results of HB87, Georgia’s Arizona-like immigration law. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Despite being signed just over a month ago, the law has already caused a mass exodus of undocumented laborers from the state, leaving Georgia farms at least 11,000 workers short of what is needed to operate.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The result: millions of dollars’ worth of Georgia crops are rotting in the fields because there is no one there to harvest them. The state’s farmers are panicking, and Gov. Nathan Deal (R), who signed the law in May, is scrambling to keep more farmers from losing crops and in some cases their farms. </span></div></div>

Vote GOP.


Q

LWW
06-24-2011, 05:11 AM
I thought you wanted workers making more money ... yet you support the greatest wage depressant in existence.

Imagine that.

eg8r
06-24-2011, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Despite being signed just over a month ago, the law has already caused a mass exodus of undocumented laborers from the state, leaving Georgia farms at least 11,000 workers short of what is needed to operate.</div></div>This is GREAT news!!! Now is a chance for all those legal Americans to prove us wrong when we say the illegals take the jobs we don't want to work.

To top this off, this would be a great example of how the unions have killed Detroit. In the auto industry unions have forced wages to unrealistic levels. Now what do you think if those unemployed union guys were to move to Ga and take up these vacation 11,000 jobs but require the Detroit wages? What do you think would happen to the price of the crops? Would they stay the same and the farmer take the hit on increase wages?

I am on both sides of the fence on this one. I personally would have no problem with the police going door to door in every dwelling in the US looking for illegals. Deporting as they go. If we removed every single illegal that is gainfully employed there would be millions of jobs available and we would be clearing out a ton of the crime at the same time. On the other hand I recognize that they do usually take jobs that Americans don't want to work. It is being proven in Ga right now although there are those on this board that would disagree.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-24-2011, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Georgia Immigration Law Already Hurting Farmers</span>

“It might almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jay Bookman writes of the horrendous results of HB87, Georgia’s Arizona-like immigration law. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Despite being signed just over a month ago, the law has already caused a mass exodus of undocumented laborers from the state, leaving Georgia farms at least 11,000 workers short of what is needed to operate.</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The result: millions of dollars’ worth of Georgia crops are rotting in the fields because there is no one there to harvest them. The state’s farmers are panicking, and Gov. Nathan Deal (R), who signed the law in May, is scrambling to keep more farmers from losing crops and in some cases their farms. </span></div></div>

Vote GOP.


Q </div></div>

News of the many mindless policies of the Repiglilcan Governors around the country helps us to keep the reality of their inept policies, and lack of intellect and conscience before the public.

Good!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
G.

Soflasnapper
06-24-2011, 06:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the auto industry unions have forced wages to unrealistic levels. </div></div>

Not true. The domestic auto maker workers get about the same hourly wage as their counterparts in the foreign auto maker plants that have located here, typically in the non-unionized South. The problem is the legacy costs of some millions of retired workers, and that problem is the double-digit annual rise in medical costs that doubles costs every 5-6 years.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I personally would have no problem with the police going door to door in every dwelling in the US looking for illegals.</div></div>

So you don't support the Constitution, or its guarantees of rights from unreasonable search and seizure? What you suggest you'd be ok with is blatantly illegal and unConstitutional.

The right to be secure in ones house is very old, and such searches should be done only upon probable cause and the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause.

Why do so many conservatives have no respect for the rights of individuals as set forth in the Bill of Rights, at least when it comes to the rights of those they have differences with?

Sev
06-24-2011, 08:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the auto industry unions have forced wages to unrealistic levels. </div></div>

Not true. The domestic auto maker workers get about the same hourly wage as their counterparts in the foreign auto maker plants that have located here, typically in the non-unionized South. The problem is the legacy costs of some millions of retired workers, and that problem is the double-digit annual rise in medical costs that doubles costs every 5-6 years.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I personally would have no problem with the police going door to door in every dwelling in the US looking for illegals.</div></div>

So you don't support the Constitution, or its guarantees of rights from unreasonable search and seizure? What you suggest you'd be ok with is blatantly illegal and unConstitutional.

The right to be secure in ones house is very old, and such searches should be done only upon probable cause and the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause.

Why do so many conservatives have no respect for the rights of individuals as set forth in the Bill of Rights, at least when it comes to the rights of those they have differences with? </div></div>

Actually one state supreme court just ruled that you have no right to protest unlawful search of your house if the police show up without a warrant.
You do have the right to protest later. Assuming the police have not shot you for resisting.

Basically the 4 amendment has been flushed down the toilet.

eg8r
06-25-2011, 07:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you don't support the Constitution, or its guarantees of rights from unreasonable search and seizure? </div></div>Well, I guess "unreasonable" would be the issue. I don't find it to be unreasonable to go after a group of people that cost this country billions of wasted dollars.

As far as these "rights" surely you would not be extending them to illegals would you? I find it despicable that you would be using the USCON to defend illegals.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 08:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you don't support the Constitution, or its guarantees of rights from unreasonable search and seizure? </div></div>Well, I guess "unreasonable" would be the issue. I don't find it to be unreasonable to go after a group of people that cost this country billions of wasted dollars.

As far as these "rights" surely you would not be extending them to illegals would you? I find it despicable that you would be using the USCON to defend illegals.

eg8r </div></div>

You did not say that the searches would be limited to where it was known illegals resided, upon probable cause. (That can be done legally right now.) Your statement was that they could go door to door (all doors) to search for them, and that kind of search would be illegal, based upon nothing.

And as for illegals having Constitutional rights?

Oh yes they do! You don't know that? Every place the Bill of Rights uses the word 'person' instead of 'citizen of the USA' means it applies to ALL persons, not just citizens. And you could look that up.

BTW, there was NO citizenship of the US, per se, until the 14th amendment after the Civil War. People were citizens of the various states.

LWW
06-26-2011, 05:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh yes they do! You don't know that? Every place the Bill of Rights uses the word 'person' instead of 'citizen of the USA' means it applies to ALL persons, not just citizens. And you could look that up.</div></div>

I did. Where do you come up with this nonsense?

The Bill of Rights contains the word "CITIZEN" exactly zero time and the word "PERSON" exactly zero times. And you could look that up.

I'm not claiming that non citizens don't have rights, but I do understand why they do and what the document you love to talk about ... but apparently have never personally read ... actually says.

Qtec
06-26-2011, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh yes they do! You don't know that? Every place the Bill of Rights uses the word 'person' instead of 'citizen of the USA' means it applies to ALL persons, not just citizens. And you could look that up.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

The Bill of Rights contains the word "CITIZEN" exactly zero time <span style='font-size: 26pt'>and the word <span style="color: #3333FF">"PERSON"</span> exactly zero times. And you could look that up.</span></div></div>

<u>I did</u> you friggin moron. [ control+f ]

" The following is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. Called the "Bill of Rights", these amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791. Each amendment's title is linked to a set of detailed annotations presented on the Findlaw website."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Provisons concerning prosecution V

No <span style='font-size: 26pt'><u><span style="color: #3333FF">person</span></u></span> shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation </div></div>

</div></div>
link (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#5)
Q.........

LWW
06-26-2011, 11:28 AM
My apologies ... it appears once.

And, by the left's mangled logic ... non citizens have 4th amendment rights but citizen's don't.

WOW! Just WOW!

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 01:57 PM
Forget the 'person' vs. 'citizen' controversy. How about 'all men'?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[74] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,</div></div>

And, of course, if these rights are inalienable and given to mankind by GOD (not the state), and the state's role is to honor and defend GOD-given rights, then...

I doubt this will convince you, so below is a citation from a man who might be called an expert on the subject, James Madison, who is called variously the Father of the Constitution, and of course, the Father of the Bill of Rights. He argued non-citizens had Constitutional rights.

Another possible authority on this question, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, agreed back in the 19th century in precedents that stand today.

It must be admitted that to the degree those rights have been trimmed back for citizens, the same applies to non-citizens.

However, do not try to say that a STATE Supreme Court is any final arbiter on any question of Constitutionality, when that is obviously the SCOTUS.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [Eugene Volokh, February 18, 2009 at 8:31pm] Trackbacks
Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens:

I've heard many people suggest that the Bill of Rights protects only citizens, and not legally admitted aliens. Some have argued that surely the Framers would not have understood the Bill of Rights as protecting noncitizens.

It turns out, though, that at least one pretty significant Framer -- that would be James Madison -- took the opposite view. Here's Madison, from his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, which criticized the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798:

Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.

The Supreme Court has endorsed Madison's view at least since Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) as to the criminal procedure provisions, and in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) (also unanimously) as to the Equal Protection Clause racial equality principle. Aliens might be deportable for their speech (see here for more on that question), but they can't be otherwise punished for it, nor can they be criminally prosecuted in the civil justice system without the normal constitutional protections. (The question of when military justice may be applied to them is a separate and complicated issue, and one that may potentially relate to citizens as well as aliens.)

Now I'm not a historian of the matter, and it may well be that the matter was unclear. Certainly Madison was arguing against people who took the contrary view; perhaps they were in the solid majority on this. But at the very least one shouldn't just casually assume that the Bill of Rights must of course apply only to citizens, when the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights took the opposite view.
(link)
Sid Finkel (mail):
Great Piece, Thank You

Many people, conservatives in particular argue that the rights of man are inalienable, and granted by the Creator, not by government. Government's role is to ensure that these rights are advanced and protected, both from government and from other groups. Such a position surely guarantees the rights of the Constitution to all, regardless of citizenship.
2.18.2009 8:43pm
(link)
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
It seems to me that Madison's view is the one to be expected of the Framers given the widely held view among them that fundamental rights are natural rights. Natural rights do not arise from a social contract but from deeper universal principles. It would be perverse for anyone holding this view to claim that natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution applied only to citizens.
2.18.2009 8:43pm
(link)
Ben Abbott (mail) (www):
Sid, I agree that many conservatives argue that rights are inalienable ... and yet many more conservatives support Gitmo and the use of torture against suspected bad guys. </div></div>

LWW
06-26-2011, 03:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not true. The domestic auto maker workers get about the same hourly wage as their counterparts in the foreign auto maker plants that have located here, typically in the non-unionized South. The problem is the legacy costs of some millions of retired workers, and that problem is the double-digit annual rise in medical costs that doubles costs every 5-6 years.</div></div>

Ahhh ... the old "HALF TRUTH" myth rises again.

The problem(s) is/are that Chrysler and Toyota build 1 car per 30.37 man hours of labor in the US ... Honda one every 31.33 man hours of labor.

In comparison, GM needs 32.29 man hours, Ford 33.88 man hours.

Next up ... Toyota runs at an average of 100% of capacity, GM 88%, Ford 84%.

Toyota also has 1.04 initial defects per car, Chrysler 1.42 per vehicle.

These numbers are a few years old, but I doubt they have changed much ... and likely have worsened with the gubmint takeover.

Not because of labor rates, but because of labor inefficiency, Toyota - Honda - Nissan enjoyed a $606 dollar per car labor cost advantage. Divided out over 30.37 hours per car ... that's a $19.95 per hour price advantage.

So, as anyone involved with the industry knows, the real problem with US labor unions isn't that they promote individual workers making more money per worker ... it's that they promote lowered production rates at reduced quality.

Our public schools are a perfect example. I don't know of anyone who has an issue with teachers making between $50K and $150K. What they have a problem with is teachers making that much to work 9 months a year and retiring at 55 while producing kids who are largely functionally illiterate.

If our schools are going to produce third world levels of education, it's not unreasonable to expect third world costs. If we must pay world class wages, it's entirely reasonable to expect world class results.

Honda and Toyota do pay first class wages, and they get first class results.

UAW plants get first class wages, but put out a largely inferior product at a higher price.

Put simply so that even a leftist can understand it ... how many people do you think walk into a new car showroom and say "I'd like to look at a car that costs $606 more than the competition and has 31.5% more defects built in."

If you guessed "ZERO" you would be correct.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 06:43 PM
These are remarkably precise numbers you state. From memory?

I have heard that legacy retirees' health care costs add MORE than that to each vehicle-- $1,000 or more.

Qtec
06-27-2011, 02:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My apologies ... it appears <u>once.</u>

And, by the left's mangled logic ... non citizens have 4th amendment rights but citizen's don't.

WOW! Just WOW! </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...nor shall any person..
..and the persons..
..The right of the people to be secure in their persons </div></div> on this page (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#5)

Q

eg8r
06-27-2011, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal</div></div>Always had me wondering what they meant when those slaves brought them tea to drink while contemplating such an important document?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-27-2011, 08:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My apologies ... it appears <u>once.</u>

And, by the left's mangled logic ... non citizens have 4th amendment rights but citizen's don't.

WOW! Just WOW! </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...nor shall any person..
..and the persons..
..The right of the people to be secure in their persons </div></div> on this page (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#5)

Q </div></div>

Here is the Rosetta Stone.

When LWW makes a correction, 4 = 1 (or zero, sometimes).

Explains a lot, really, when you think about it.

Same with where I said when they use person instead of citizen. He DID correctly point out that there were no mentions of citizens (which was my point), so we now may form the hypothesis, that LWW counts correctly... to ZERO!

Gayle in MD
06-29-2011, 05:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My apologies ... it appears <u>once.</u>

And, by the left's mangled logic ... non citizens have 4th amendment rights but citizen's don't.

WOW! Just WOW! </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...nor shall any person..
..and the persons..
..The right of the people to be secure in their persons </div></div> on this page (http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#5)

Q </div></div>

Here is the Rosetta Stone.

When LWW makes a correction, 4 = 1 (or zero, sometimes).

Explains a lot, really, when you think about it.

Same with where I said when they use person instead of citizen. He DID correctly point out that there were no mentions of citizens (which was my point), so we now may form the hypothesis, that LWW counts correctly... to ZERO!



</div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif