The geographical base of the republican party exploiting minorities? Oh no that couldn't be possible could it? Republicans talk tough about border enforcement but they would be screwed for labor. Who would they pay substandard wages to and ripoff?

The powers that be can't legally have slaves any more so they have to content themselves with citizens they can turn into wage slaves and dark skinned people they can exploit and treat as subhuman.

It is a sickness.

Be Well.

Spud,

You ignore the sickness of spouting about the rule of law while calling for officials to be tried for crimes under the premise that "no one is above the law", then applauding when the law isn't enforced against people that break it by the very act of being here.

Your schizophrenic approach to the law renders any opinion you have to be moot. Same goes for all the others that do the same thing.

I say, give these people their wages since they earned them, then deport them since they are owed that as well.

Republicans talk tough about border enforcement but they would be screwed for labor.

Uh huh... you have a VERY short memory.

How many threads on this site every day talk about the high unemployment among LEGAL residents? I put forward that they would get all the labor they want from the ranks of legal citizens that are having trouble finding work and need to support their families. I suggest that it is in part illegal workers that contribute to the high unemployment amongst the legal population since without the illegals, their would be more jobs.

Sorry to say this but Moomanfla is right for once in mine eyes. Neither the Right NOR the Left want to do anything about the border nor illegal aliens. Thats where their corporate pimps and sometimes their own family members see Nancy Pelosi Pathetic Employee Louisy On Serious Issues Hubby gets His cheap labor from. Nobody will do a damned thing about the Border and Illegals because if they did that food prices and goods and services would skyrocket unfortunately.

Larry

You ignore the sickness of spouting about the rule of law while calling for officials to be tried for crimes under the premise that "no one is above the law", then applauding when the law isn't enforced against people that break it by the very act of being here.

WTF?!

Did you overdose on Rtard pills tonight or sommat, Moon?

Where in wot Spud wrote does Spud "applaud" illegal immigration?

Spud agrees that illegal immigration is a very real problem that needs to be addressed with something other than a blanket amnesty or a fine or a slap on the wrist.

You have nearly as many illegal immigrants in yer country as Spud has legal citizens in his.

That's seriously fucked up and cannot be allowed to continue unresolved indefinitely.

The problem starts with the vast numbers of Latinos in dirt poor shitholes who seek a better way of life fer themselves and their families and while Spud doesn't applaud them there is certainly an understanding of their motivations that one can be sympathetic to.

Not the case when thinking about the corporate bitches (mostly on the right if we're being honest) who welcome the illegal immigrants as a way of depressing wages for regular Americans and as a cheap source of easily exploitable labour.

Also not the case when thinking about the cynical Dem leadership who sees in these folks an unstoppable advantage in terms of votes if they can be legalised.

Nevermind the fact that the Rs think their votes are up for grabs on religious grounds (a not unfair assesment albeit also a deeply cynical one).

Now give yer head a shake and try that again. K?

Be Well.

You ignore the sickness of spouting about the rule of law while calling for officials to be tried for crimes under the premise that "no one is above the law", then applauding when the law isn't enforced against people that break it by the very act of being here.

WTF?!

Did you overdose on Rtard pills tonight or sommat, Moon?

Where in wot Spud wrote does Spud "applaud" illegal immigration?

Spud agrees that illegal immigration is a very real problem that needs to be addressed with something other than a blanket amnesty or a fine or a slap on the wrist.

You have nearly as many illegal immigrants in yer country as Spud has legal citizens in his.

That's seriously fucked up and cannot be allowed to continue unresolved indefinitely.

The problem starts with the vast numbers of Latinos in dirt poor shitholes who seek a better way of life fer themselves and their families and while Spud doesn't applaud them there is certainly an understanding of their motivations that one can be sympathetic to.

Not the case when thinking about the corporate bitches (mostly on the right if we're being honest) who welcome the illegal immigrants as a way of depressing wages for regular Americans and as a cheap source of easily exploitable labour.

Also not the case when thinking about the cynical Dem leadership who sees in these folks an unstoppable advantage in terms of votes if they can be legalised.

Nevermind the fact that the Rs think their votes are up for grabs on religious grounds (a not unfair assesment albeit also a deeply cynical one).

Now give yer head a shake and try that again. K?

Be Well.

LOL

Spud's seeing double.

Must be all them mooseheads!

Be Well.

Spud,

If I had your position on illegal immigration wrong, I apologize.

However my post still stands for the many on this site that DO hold that view. You know who they are. They are usually quite vocal on threads like these.

Not the case when thinking about the corporate bitches (mostly on the right if we're being honest)

No... if you were being honest, you would realize that the "corporate bitches" as you put it are equal on both sides of the isle. They may have different ways of showing it, but at the end of the day, they are ALL corrupt.

who welcome the illegal immigrants as a way of depressing wages for regular Americans and as a cheap source of easily exploitable labour.

I don't think that is why they do it, but that is one effect. I think most conservatives (not politicians), would welcome a return to the gold standard. This would make what you are talking about a moot point since inflation is, if not impossible, at least extremely difficult under the gold standard, hence no naturally rising cost of living outside shortages in goods. Creating The Fed was a bad, Bad, BAD solution to the problem it was meant to fix.

If I had your position on illegal immigration wrong, I apologize.

Apology cheerfully accepted.

No... if you were being honest, you would realize that the "corporate bitches" as you put it are equal on both sides of the isle. They may have different ways of showing it, but at the end of the day, they are ALL corrupt.

Of course they are on both sides, hence the "mostly".

Yer "all" seems a bit absolutist and harsh however.

The entire political arean is systemically corrupted adn all involved in it are tainted to one degree or another.

That's a sad, simple fact.

Spud'll give you the worthless Nancy Pelousy and the Corporate Whore Dodd if you'll admit that the right has it's fair share of villains too.

I don't think that is why they do it, but that is one effect. I think most conservatives (not politicians), would welcome a return to the gold standard

Nixon's dismantling of the Bretton-Woods agreement in 1970 set the stage for where we are today with Government answering to corporations and having their agenda set by them.

Whether those worms can be shoved back into that opened can is impossible to say with any certainty but at any rate this "tail wag the dog" problem need to be addressed seriously at some point before a bloody revolution occurs.

Be Well.

Creating The Fed was a bad, Bad, BAD solution to the problem it was meant to fix.

Yup, Frankenstein's Monster did less damage.

Be Well.

/KK booze is makig Spud sleepy.
//Off to bed now with Visions of Stanley Cups twirling in me wee spuddish noggin.
///Exiting the exciting and dangerously revolutionary Drudge Retort, as ya do
stage left.

We got to exploit somebody. The "normal" victims have moved away.

We can't help ourselves.

How many threads on this site every day talk about the high unemployment among LEGAL residents? I put forward that they would get all the labor they want from the ranks of legal citizens that are having trouble finding work and need to support their families. I suggest that it is in part illegal workers that contribute to the high unemployment amongst the legal population since without the illegals, their would be more jobs.

#4 | POSTED BY MOOMANFL

These employers could always hire legal citizens, they choose not to. They hire illegals on purpose so they can pay lower wages. I'd be willing to bet most of these fine southern employers that are small businesses are owned by republicans.

Poor treatment of course, is why they keep coming here in droves..

and by the way..

I'd be willing to bet most of these fine southern employers that are small businesses are owned by republicans.

Then explain rastaninja (Drudge's token jihadist), if you can, WHY it is Republicans that are calling for tighter immigration controls and people like you call for open borders?

Then explain rastaninja (Drudge's token jihadist), if you can, WHY it is Republicans that are calling for tighter immigration controls and people like you call for open borders?

#14 | POSTED BY NMG_NO

You all talk a big game but still want your modern day slave labor. Like authorizing a fence but not funding it.

They are treated poor. Better than Mexico standards but less than USA standards.

Better than Mexico standards but less than USA standards.

So it is "win-win" then?

So it is "win-win" then?

#16 | POSTED BY KANREI

No humans should be treated with dignity and respect. They shouldn't be taken advantage of. Forced to work in unsafe conditions with no rights. If you are going to hire somebody treat them as you would want to be treated.

No humans should be treated with dignity and respect.

meant to say without dignity and respect.

Rasta,
I took that as No, humans should be treated with dignity and respect. I understood. =D

You all talk a big game but still want your modern day slave labor.

Rasta,

You are TRULY a colossal moron.

Who says we want "modern day slave labor"? You????

WE say that we want them gone. Period. They aren't legal; they don't need to be here. Period.

When it comes to voting, our choices have been:

a) Republican that might actually do something about it, but more likely will keep the status quo or only do small token things.

b) Third party, who historically are wasted votes and may have other onerous or wacky ideas that could be harmful.

OR....

c) Democrat that will do absolutely NOTHING about the problem. As a matter of fact, they will ignore the rule of law (while whining about it in other areas as I mentioned above) and legalize the ones breaking the law en masse.

Gee... hard choice there, Half-wit.

Why do so many construction companies in the south hire them? Most of the foreman I know in the construction industry that hire are staunch republicans. I used to work for an electrical contractor and all the helpers were illegal. Go to a job site in Florida and you will find almost all illegals. Not because Americans won't do the work just not at 8 bucks an hour.

Why do so many construction companies in the south hire them?

Because most construction companies are privately owned small businesses (not large corporations). They look to save money. I don't agree with the practice and would end it, but there it is.

Most of the foreman I know in the construction industry that hire are staunch republicans.

How many Republicans are construction formen?

See? This is where your argument breaks down. Not all Republicans own businesses. And out of the ones that do, not all hire illegal immigrants. It is perfectly possible for a segment of Republicans to hold a position that isn't shared by the entire party.

You paint with the broad brush of ignorance again. You want to paint all Republicans with the same brush. It keeps it simple for your simple mind.

Most of the foreman I know in the construction industry that hire are staunch republicans.

Keep selling this tripe on as many threads as you want.

Nobody is buying.

Most of the foreman I know in the construction industry that hire are staunch republicans.

I always love hearing versions of this. But still, I'll ask: How do you know this? Do you go around polling construction foremen on their political affiliation? Do they have a big 'R' on their foreheads?

It keeps it simple for your simple mind.

You give the boy too much credit. I've yet to see proof that he has a mind at all.

NAFTA Created this problem. It forced the closer of small Mexican farms and small businesses forcing the farmers/workers to find other work.

The US created this mess, we are responsible for this mess, and there will be an amnesty sooner or later. We cannot have 12 million slaves in our country without confronting the fact that we brought them here and there are far too many to deport let alone the costs.

Sheer numbers indicate to me the battle is over and corporate America was successful in destroying the working class.

Look around you. Who created this financial nightmare, underpaid slave labor or corporate Greed?

I suggest pointing your anger where it belongs - Corporate America...

and there are far too many to deport let alone the costs.

Bullshit.

Secure the borders to stop the inbound flow. Then the ones here can be deported at our leisure.

Your premise is baseless and flawed. It is a fallacy that is often promoted by the open border crowd. It is only impossible if we try to do it all at once, and before the border is secured.

The poor exploited illegals should return to their home countries. Their economies may well revive before ours. Due to the upcoming tax pogram by Obammy there maybe an influx of US born to their countries.

#27 | Posted by moomanfl

Okay moon answer these questions then. After 9/11 the republican had all three houses of government.

Why did they not close the boarders with the Military/Nat'l Guard on our side?

Why is the boarder fence underfunded which kills the purpose?

Why has there not been a single owner jailed over hiring illegal immigrants?

Why has there not been any owner jailed over stealing an immigrants wages?

You are being play by those you hold affinity with and you don't even see it.

How long do you think it will take to remove 12 million people?

How much do you think it will cost (including arrest, incarceration, court, appeals, food, water, clothing, guards, facilities, transportation, etc)?

How well is our economy doing right now?

Don't you think agribusiness, construction, food processors, etc. needs these bodies at slave labor costs?

You are being play by those you hold affinity with and you don't even see it.

But my premise is baseless and flawed...

Good post Prolix.

#8 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-04-22 05:01 AM | Reply |

Spud-
Ya know how you can tell a guy that likes Moosehead?

The antler scars on his chest.

I'd be willing to bet most of these fine southern employers that are small businesses are owned by republicans.

#13 | POSTED BY RASTANINJA AT 2009-04-22 09:44 AM | REPLY |

I'll take your bet. I'll bet they are mostly hispanic-owned farm labor contractors, with a few republicans sprinkled in between...

I put forward that they would get all the labor they want from the ranks of legal citizens that are having trouble finding work and need to support their families. I suggest that it is in part illegal workers that contribute to the high unemployment amongst the legal population since without the illegals, their would be more jobs.

#4 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-04-22 04:49 AM | Reply

Nonsense.
If you really think a significant number of unemployed office workers are going to pick fruit, garden, slaughter cattle or do any of the other sorts of labor-intensive, low pay jobs that these immigrants are doing, you're high.
If the pols were serious about illegal immigration, they'd put a few employers out of business and jail some white people. Then, the jobs would dry up for illegals. Anything else is just PR.

Not really sure why this is even a "news" item. People with less have been getting exploited by people with more for as long as people have been upright.

I'll take your bet. I'll bet they are mostly hispanic-owned farm labor contractors, with a few republicans sprinkled in between...

#32 | Posted by somoco

Don't you mean republican business owners who contract with coyotes who supply slave labor?

Why did they not close the boarders with the Military/Nat'l Guard on our side?

Because after 9/11 they were gearing up for other conflicts. The Republican politicians are also divided on border issues which when put together with the majority of Dems that are against reform on this issue creates a majority that won't do diddly squat. You and other Dems find it convenient to paint all Republican's to be the same as the politicians. This is a fallacy.

Why is the boarder fence underfunded which kills the purpose?

See my above answer. As a matter of fact, most of your questions can be answered this way.

How long do you think it will take to remove 12 million people?

Awww... you mean the job will be tough and take a while? Oh, gee.... never mind then.

Give me a break. Who cares? So the job will be tough and take a while. So do most things worth doing.

How well is our economy doing right now?

How much better would it be doing with more jobs for LEGAL residents. How much better without illegals burdening down our social systems, health systems, etc.?

Don't you think agribusiness, construction, food processors, etc. needs these bodies at slave labor costs?

No, I don't. Do you?

But my premise is baseless and flawed...

First thing you have said that makes sense.

"Workplace abuses and racial profiling are rampant in the South."

This is news?

If you really think a significant number of unemployed office workers are going to pick fruit, garden, slaughter cattle or do any of the other sorts of labor-intensive, low pay jobs that these immigrants are doing, you're high.

If you think they would rather starve to death, or let their kids starve to death rather than doing it the YOU are high.

No mention of the illegal on illegal crime. Interesting it's always that mean white man. Having an illegal for a brother-in-law sorta (marriage isn't legal he lied on marriage certificate) gives me a bit of a unique prospective.

Illegals are constantly ripping other illegals off for the same reason it can't be reported. I also supose an illegal who hits someone's car and drives off since they have no insurance is probably being exploited by the man anyway.

Sure it happens but talk about a biased article. Of course the profiling does happen. I can't tell you how many times my wife has been pulled over. Latino woman driving a mini-van is cop fodder around here.

Moonman you live in ga. Aren't most of the people outside of ATL rethugs? Yes they are. You are A greedy bigot that makes excuses for people in your party. Most white Georgians are the same. That is why I hate the south.

In many cases isn't the fact that illegals are exploitable exactly what the employers they work for are looking for?

#35 | Posted by moomanfl

So whenever you want to answer these questions feel free. But I know you can't. You did not think through your original post.

It's okay, I understand knee jerk reactions.

You are being played by those you have affinity with though...

Oh Moon, I'm not a democrat, never have been. I don't fall for affinity groups. Too much group think for my taste.

Carry on...

Aren't most of the people outside of ATL rethugs? Yes they are....

Most white Georgians are the same.

Depends on where you live. I live in a heavily Democrat area. Still trying to pick on stereotypes and just not having any luck, eh? Sounds like the tactics of a bigot. But then, that has already been well established about you.

So whenever you want to answer these questions feel free.

All ready did, as I pointed out.... critical thinking just isn't your forte.

But I know you can't.

Keep telling yourself this. The facts speak otherwise.

You did not think through your original post.

It's okay, I understand knee jerk reactions.

You are being played by those you have affinity with though...

I see now. You couldn't actually debate my ACTUAL answer, so you had to pretend that I didn't answer. Your defacto concession is accepted. Move along now.

Moonman what is the name of the city you live in and the street you live on. Is it in Cobb or Forsyth?

I have lived the last 18 months In the south and most whites are bigots. Even though they won't admit it

Moonman what is the name of the city you live in and the street you live on. Is it in Cobb or Forsyth?

None of your business where I live.

The only way I could be stupider than you for asking is if I actually answered you in a public forum on the internet... or answered you anywhere for that matter.

I have lived the last 18 months In the south and most whites are bigots.

Says the bigot.

Moonman what is the name of the city you live in and the street you live on. Is it in Cobb or Forsyth?

#45 | Posted by rastaninja

Doing an "investigation," jackass?

I could give two shits where Moomanfla lives. I told RCADE You were a Security and Safety risk here with regards to the Retort. You just proved My point.

Larry

I wanted to know if it was in a "white" neighborhood. Cobb and Forsyth are known as racist counties. If you weren't racist you would live in gwinnett Fulton or dekalb

If you weren't racist you would live in gwinnett Fulton or dekalb

There ae lots of racists in Fulton and DeKalb counties.

If you weren't racist you would...

Says the racist.

How am I a risk? I asked and he didn't answer me. I didn't expose anything.

"Moonman what is the name of the city you live in and the street you live on. Is it in Cobb or Forsyth?
#45 | Posted by rastaninja"

"Doing an "investigation," jackass?
#49 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-04-22 07:19 PM"

Maybe there is another explanation. Like maybe he just wanted to know in case Moonman was ever walking home from work in the dark and needed a lift, or something. You know, something innocent like that.

I wanted to know if it was in a "white" neighborhood.

No, I don't live in a "white" neighborhood. I am one of only a small handful of white people in my primarily black and hispanic sub-division. Most of whom are my friends. My kid's neighborhood friends are ALL black and hispanic. A fact I have mentioned before on the DR.

Try your bullshit elsewhere.

BTW, Rasta.

Since you live in the Atlanta area, you obviously must have seen the news report on Channel 5 last month about the white kid in "racist" Cobb county that was beaten to a pulp by a group of black kids with guns while he was walking down the Silver Comet Trail in Powder Springs.

He must have asked for it right?

#44 | Posted by moomanfl

I saw you posted a few obfuscations, if you call those answers well okay then, I'm wasting my time with you.

I have lived the last 18 months In the south and most whites are bigots. Even though they won't admit it

#46 | Posted by rastaninja

What they have something on their forehead that tells you this?

The south always have problems with the notion of these are other people, if they can exploit they certainly have shown they do.

We don't need any new laws, enforce the existing ones.

#55 | Posted by mOntecOre

FF

Here is a blog on the attack:

I saw you posted a few obfuscations

Keep telling yourself that.

The south always have problems with the notion of these are other people, if they can exploit they certainly have shown they do.

The south has no monopoly on human exploitation.

As for this thread--this kind of crap happens all over the country--not just the south.

First--the employers have to adhere to E-verify and check all employees they hire. Mandatory.

Second--the folks here illegally need to leave.

It is wrong for employers to take advantage of illegals and they should be found and prosecuted.

It is wrong for illegals to be here and they need to go home.

There is a law that prevents illegals from reporting the abuses to authorities.

That law should be thrown out.

Illegals could report the abuses and then kindly deported to start their process of coming into this country through the front door.

The south always have problems with the notion of these are other people, if they can exploit they certainly have shown they do.

The south has no monopoly on human exploitation.

Posted by goatman at 2009-04-22 07:45 PM | Reply

You got that right. We have our own illegal alien/latino exploitation here in Western Kansas. Last time I checked Kansas was Central America USA. NOT South Not West Not North but Central.

Larry

Human exploitation is not confined to any particular geography.

Illegals could report the abuses and then kindly deported to start their process of coming into this country through the front door.

LOL!

Now here is a real thought out post.

Illegal: I have been abused so I am going to report it and have them send me back to more abuse in my country....LOL!

#63 | Posted by moomanfl

Hey we do have something in common, I know a black guy too. I even know a Mexican. I am very progressive...

Now here is a real thought out post.

Illegal: I have been abused so I am going to report it and have them send me back to more abuse in my country

Translation:

"I don't want to stop breaking the law... I just want everyone else to."

Seems like YOUR post wasn't real thought out either.

Hey we do have something in common, I know a black guy too. I even know a Mexican. I am very progressive...

Good for you. I am not progressive... I am just not racist.

People can be against illegal immigration for reasons other than race.

I would be just as much against a white European that was here illegally.

Pedal your strawmen elsewhere.

I know a black guy too. I even know a Mexican. I am very progressive...

Why is that progressive unless you were formerly a racist?

"I don't want to stop breaking the law... I just want everyone else to."

The illegals are really legal by default, we turned our heads when they entered the country there by allowing them entry.

Expecting the illegals to violate their right of the 5th is just stupid, but you seem to be thinking out your posts so well.

The illegals are really legal by default, we turned our heads when they entered the country there by allowing them entry.

Wrong.

Failure to enforce the law does not negate the law.

Expecting the illegals to violate their right of the 5th is just stupid, but you seem to be thinking out your posts so well.

Wrong again.

I don't expect a lawbreaker to start caring about whether they are doing right or wrong. I don't expect that they WILL turn themselves in (although I know of one case where a couple illegals left on their own for moral reasons). I just think that they SHOULD.

Keep the ignorant strawmen coming.

I would be just as much against a white European that was here illegally.

Pedal your strawmen elsewhere.

#71 | Posted by moomanfl

I have never ever seen anyone complain about the Canadians that cross our borders every single day.

I don't see armed minutemen guarding the northern border either.

Something doesn't jive here...

and moon,

You still have not answered my questions, you did not even attempt the one about cost.

But, I know, you answered them and I am wrong.

I have never ever seen anyone complain about the Canadians that cross our borders every single day.

I don't see armed minutemen guarding the northern border either.

Something doesn't jive here...

Illegal Canadians just don't seem to be clogging the system like other illegals. For that matter maybe I don't complain about them because I have never heard of one.

If you know of one, give them a hearty "Go the fuck home!" from me... deal?

You still have not answered my questions

Yes I did. Merely saying I didn't doesn't make you right... it just makes you ignorant.

you did not even attempt the one about cost.

Case in point... I answered right after I quoted that part.

But, I know, you answered them and I am wrong.

Hey! He CAN be taught!

Moon - here was the cost question.

How much do you think it will cost (including arrest, incarceration, court, appeals, food, water, clothing, guards, facilities, transportation, etc)?
#29 | Posted by Prolix247

....
Here is your answer -
....

Why did they not close the boarders with the Military/Nat'l Guard on our side?

Because after 9/11 they were gearing up for other conflicts. The Republican politicians are also divided on border issues which when put together with the majority of Dems that are against reform on this issue creates a majority that won't do diddly squat. You and other Dems find it convenient to paint all Republican's to be the same as the politicians. This is a fallacy.

Why is the boarder fence underfunded which kills the purpose?

See my above answer. As a matter of fact, most of your questions can be answered this way.

How long do you think it will take to remove 12 million people?

Awww... you mean the job will be tough and take a while? Oh, gee.... never mind then.

Give me a break. Who cares? So the job will be tough and take a while. So do most things worth doing.

How well is our economy doing right now?

How much better would it be doing with more jobs for LEGAL residents. How much better without illegals burdening down our social systems, health systems, etc.?

Don't you think agribusiness, construction, food processors, etc. needs these bodies at slave labor costs?

No, I don't. Do you?

But my premise is baseless and flawed...

First thing you have said that makes sense.

#35 | Posted by moomanf
...........

I did not see any response? This is the main reason there will have to be an amnesty.

Regarding the Canadians - My wife's family is Canadian (Newfoundland/Nova Scotia) and I know several families that are here illegally but they know they blend and no one questions them.

Me personally, I feel in a global economy labor should be able to cross borders at the same rate as goods so I don't care.

Mixed up the "cost" one with the "economy" answer.

The cost question was lumped in with the "How long" question in your post... just consider my answer for the one to be the answer for the other as well.

This is the main reason there will have to be an amnesty.

Bullshit.

That is only true if you think all will need to be deported at once. And even then, the cost depends on the method of getting them.

As I DID state before, secure the borders then the ones here can be gotten as we are able to pay for the operations to do so. Since the incoming tide would be cut off this is much more feasible.

As I said in the post where I brought this up before, your argument a fallacy often brought up by the open borders/amnesty crowd. It is also a point that anyone with more than half a brain knows better than to accept.

Me personally, I feel in a global economy labor should be able to cross borders at the same rate as goods so I don't care.

Except that goods entering the country can be tariffed and taxed and their entry is controlled. There are laws against illegal entry of goods as well which can, are, and should be enforced. As you have so generously conceded... labor should be no different.

#80 | Posted by moomanfl

So by your logic if it took 25 years to deport 12 million ((+) due to population growth) people at a cost of 1 trillion dollars that is okay with you?

So by your logic if it took 25 years to deport 12 million ((+) due to population growth) people at a cost of 1 trillion dollars that is okay with you?

Considering that we are currently pouring trillions into much more ephemeral things with less likelyhood of success...

I would consider it a much better investment of the money. However that is hypothetical, unless you can show that it would indeed take 25 years and cost 1 trillion.

BTW... to clarify:

We are spending a trillion (at the least) in just one years time. However in your hypothetical it was 1 trillion over 25 years, which actually comes out to only 40 billion per year. That also assumes for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct and not exaggerated.

If The Southern Poverty Law Center really wanted to help these "poor Latinos" why don't they give them bus tickets back to Mexico?

I wonder how many people in Washington or Wall Street give a shit.

not to worry obama will find a way to support all the illegals and raise there standard of living.

not to worry obama will find a way to support all the illegals and raise there standard of living.

#87 | POSTED BY SEMTEX111

By raising taxes on the right I hope.

oh boo hoo let the fuckers go back to mexico

"Workplace abuses and racial profiling are rampant in the South."

This is news? (posted by Northguy3)

That's bigoted nonsense.. people are leaving the north and moving south for reasons other than the weather.. economic opportunity and in general, less intrusive state governments.. in other words, freedom..

The south is the most racially integrated part of the United States nowadays....

Here we go again.....

Jesus!

Here we go again.....

Jesus!

#81 | Posted by moomanfl

Labor is taxed and NAFTA (North American FREE TRADE Agreement) eliminates tariffs on goods crossing our northern and southern border.

So yes, Labor should be able to move at the same rate as goods under NAFTA as it is all trade.

As far as illegal vs. legal goods, well it seems to me there is plenty of illegal goods crossing the southern border into the US daily and our government does not seem willing or able to stop it (drugs).

So with that in mind which causes more problems in our country.

Illegal goods (drugs)?

or

Illegal labor (undocumented immigrants)?

Labor is taxed and NAFTA (North American FREE TRADE Agreement) eliminates tariffs on goods crossing our northern and southern border.

Labor is taxed only when they have a social security number. Plenty of illegals don't bother. They just get paid under the table.

Tarrifs on goods was only part of what I was talking about. Have you ever taken commercial goods across the border? I have. It is a ROYAL pain in the ass. There is a whole rigmarole you have to go through including faxing paperwork to a third party intermediary hours before you even get there. Furthermore NAFTA did not remove all tariffs on all goods. Check your facts.

As far as illegal vs. legal goods, well it seems to me there is plenty of illegal goods crossing the southern border into the US daily and our government does not seem willing or able to stop it (drugs).

Yeah.... they come in here with all those illegal immigrants. Just one more reason to close off the border. Then get as much of what came across as we can find out again as quickly as possible.

So with that in mind which causes more problems in our country.

That is a false dichotomy fallacy. I don't have to choose one or the other. I choose answer "C": Both cause enough problems to justify keeping them out.

See this is what you do, Prolix. You only tell part of the facts, ignoring the part that is inconvenient to your argument. You also try to set up false choices, artificially limiting the choices.

I say this not to call you stupid, but rather in hopes that you AREN'T stupid and might actually learn. That is assuming that this isn't done intentionally. If it is, then you are just a dishonest dick.

#95 | Posted by moomanfl

Moon I have taken good across the border as me and my two brother have three homes in Mexico (been going for over 20 years). I never had to go through what you did although I only brought across construction material and tools (over several years).

I think it would help if you did not think in black and white terms.

Of course NAFTA did not eliminate all tariffs and I did not think I had to explain that to you. I was giving you the benefit of doubt. Next time I will be explicit.

Also, I did not set up any false dichotomy I asked a simple question. What causes more damage A or B. You answered both. If that is your answer, okay, I can accept that. But you did not answer MY question you did a Palin and answered the question YOU wanted to.

If you want to debase yourself and call me a dick that is okay too. I was merely having a conversation with you. It seems to me I tweaked you a little for you to come at me like that.

If I hurt your feelings or ego for asking a simple question, I am sorry. I do like to challenge peoples core ideas.

I thought this was a place to discuss ideas not argue about dogmas...

This wouldn't have happened if they had only turned down the volume on that crazy Mexican circus music blasting out of the pickup trucks.

Labor is also taxed even without a SS#. Many immigrants have EIN (Employee Identification Number) numbers. But I guess I am nitpicking here...

#97 | Posted by MrFair

There is nothing better than the brass section of a Mexican band...

I know I fibbed a couple of times about how many bottles of Kahlua I was bringing back across the border from TJ.

"Bless me Father for I have sinned...."

But I sure had fun.

There is nothing better than the brass section of a Mexican band...

#99 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2009-04-23 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag

Except for the German Oom-pah version it's based on, which is also usually better as far as being tuned up.

There is nothing better than the brass section of a Mexican band....

#99 | Posted by Prolix247

I never had to go through what you did although I only brought across construction material and tools (over several years).

Apples and oranges. I crossed the border in a commercial vehicle hauling commercial goods. Not privately owned material. Do try to keep up.

What causes more damage A or B. You answered both. If that is your answer, okay, I can accept that. But you did not answer MY question you did a Palin and answered the question YOU wanted to.

So in other words, if i ask "Do you still beat your wife?", you will simply answer my question with a yes or no, and not substitute your own question?

The fact is, you question was a bullshit question that falsely limited the choices. You wanted a answer on one or the other, the attempt of which was to trap me. I saw through this and refused to be your sucker. My apologies for not being dumb enough to fall for it.

It seems to me I tweaked you a little for you to come at me like that.

Actually it seems I have tweaked you a bit. I gave you two choices as to what the situation may be:

a) unintentional use of fallacies. In which case I understood, and educated.

b) intentional use of fallacies. In which case you are a dishonest dick.

By stating that I called you a dick, you have demonstrated which case fits you. Duly noted. It was intentional.

I do like to challenge peoples core ideas.

Talk about ego. No you didn't challenge a thing. To challenge you would have had to have valid, logical arguments. You didn't as I have pointed out. You use apple to orange comparisons and false dichotomies. That is no challenge at all.

I thought this was a place to discuss ideas not argue about dogmas...

The quit arguing dogmas and actually learn something.

Many immigrants have EIN (Employee Identification Number) numbers. But I guess I am nitpicking here...

Many don't, but as I have pointed out, you only tell the part that suits your argument.

There is nothing better than the brass section of a Mexican band....

#99 | Posted by Prolix247

This song is for you.

#102 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-04-23 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Chris - thanks for the excellent link. Yes real mariachi music is awesome. But that other oom-pah stuff sounds like poorly-rehearsed circus music being blown through tarnished, dented horns by old sad circus clowns with runny makeup and whiskey breath.

#102 | Posted by CalifChris

Thanks Chris, All I need now is a little lime and some Patron...

So in other words, if i ask "Do you still beat your wife?", you will simply answer my question with a yes or no, and not substitute your own question?

The fact is, you question was a bullshit question that falsely limited the choices. You wanted a answer on one or the other, the attempt of which was to trap me. I saw through this and refused to be your sucker. My apologies for not being dumb enough to fall for it.

#103 | Posted by moomanfl

The question I asked,

"whether illegal drugs or illegal labor is worse,"

is nothing like the

"Do you beat your wife" type of question. Talk about a straw man.

My question is not personalized. It is merely an inquiry. You my friend are making it personal.

Now if I asked "Moonman when was the last time you stuck you thumb in your ass?" That would be the same type of question.

How was I trying to trap you? It really is a simple question. My answer would be Illegal Drugs do far more damage than Illegal Workers. It makes you compare and contrast one over the other. Simple stuff.

I have no idea what your response would be because you are too afraid to answer the question?

Why are you afraid to answer a simple question?

Why are you so paranoid?

Maybe you should change your name to moonchickenfl.

#104 | Posted by moomanfl

By the way - I was responding to this:

Labor is taxed only when they have a social security number. Plenty of illegals don't bother. They just get paid under the table.

So I just reminded YOU that some immigrants have EIN numbers, NOT SSI numbers.

So this comment:

Many don't, but as I have pointed out, you only tell the part that suits your argument.

Is more applicable to you not me. You left out EIN Numbers while arguing "They just get paid under the table." Which is not entirely correct now is it?

You argue like a schizophrenic. You argue your own points and think you have said something.

"whether illegal drugs or illegal labor is worse,"

is nothing like the

"Do you beat your wife" type of question. Talk about a straw man.

You just can't stop being dishonest.

I answered your question. I don't think either one is worse than the other, however you claim that didn't answer your question. You falsely limited the choices.

You wanted an either/or answer, which I can't give since I don't believe it is an either/or situation.

Instead you claim I pull a "Palin" and substituted my own question. Much like a person answering the "Do you still beat your wife?" that answers "I have never beaten my wife." must be pulling a "Palin" by not answering "yes" or "no".

Maybe you should change your name to moonchickenfl.

Maybe you should change your name to "Prolapse247" since you seem to be nothing but a defective asshole that can't keep his shit strait.

So I just reminded YOU that some immigrants have EIN numbers, NOT SSI numbers.

And I just reminded you that plenty of them have neither an EIN or SSI. Instead they get paid under the table.

The point being: There is no control. They are illegally here. We don't have a way of insuring they pay taxes. There is no real way to determine how many ARE paying taxes. Furthermore, many of the ones paying taxes are fraudulently using other peoples SSI numbers. In other words identity theft.

BTW... I am also against the use of EIN by illegals. That is just a way of justifying someone that is breaking the law just by being here.

Poor people are exploited everywhere.

Where is the story here? Most likely we are talking about non-English speaking illegal immigrants who work for below market wages anyway. Let's face it, if you are willing to pay MARKET wages, you are not going to take a risk hiring illegal immigrants when you can hire a legal American worker.

moonchicken...

I answered your question. I don't think either one is worse than the other, however you claim that didn't answer your question. You falsely limited the choices.

Why do you think this???

Jesus smiles upon you with a glad heart, UTAStaff.

Jesus smiles upon you with a glad heart, UTAStaff.

#113 | Posted by BetelG

Just keeping it real. You what I said is absolutely true.

Why do you think this???

Simple... you claim I didn't answer your question, even though I said in my original answer:

So with that in mind which causes more problems in our country.

That is a false dichotomy fallacy. I don't have to choose one or the other. I choose answer "C": Both cause enough problems to justify keeping them out.

#94 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-04-23 02:58 PM

You claimed that I didn't answer your question because I wouldn't choose your false either/or situation. Instead you accuse me of:

you did not answer MY question you did a Palin and answered the question YOU wanted to.

#96 | Posted by Prolapse247 at 2009-04-23 03:26 PM

So my question to you is: Do you still beat your wife?

Don't pull a "Palin" on me.

#115 | Posted by moomanfl

No, I still don't beat my wife.

Okay now your turn.

Which is worse:

Illegal Drugs
or
Illegal Immigration

No, I still don't beat my wife.

Okay now your turn.

See! Pulling a Palin already.

I didn't ask: "Are you still not beating your wife?" Which is the question you answered.

I asked: "Do you still beat your wife?"

Maybe you get my point now, Prolapse.

Or maybe you just sucked in English class and your really don't understand the difference. Is that it? Poor English knowledge?

Perhapse that also explains why you don't seem to recognize that I answered your question already.

See, both questions (yours and mine) make a fallacious assumption. Mine assumes that you have beaten your wife by using the phrase "do you STILL".

That is a fallacious assumption since there are other choices: you may have NEVER beaten your wife. So in order to address the question truthfully you are FORCED to change the question.

Yours makes the assumption that I think one is worse than the other by asking "which one is worse".

For your question there are 4 possible answers, but you only seem to want two. The 4 possible ones are:

A, B, Both are equally bad, Neither is bad

I answered the third way as the very first word of my answer proves:

Both cause enough problems to justify keeping them out.

The rest of the sentence just explains WHY I think they are equally bad.

If you have a further need of education in English, please look up a remedial class at your local community college.

#117 | Posted by moomanfl

Okay moonchicken try this. No, I no longer beat my wife.

Okay your turn, now answer my question...

You see, you gain no traction over this question. You only make yourself look small and petty.

Step up to the plate now little man.

WHAT SAY YOU!!!

You see, you gain no traction over this question. You only make yourself look small and petty.

No, you just don't mind being held to a false choice.

I do.

The only thing proven is that you will go to any lengths to justify a fallacy on your part.

I have explained my answer, Prolapse. Whether you admit to having been spanked on this or not, it doesn't change the reality that you were. It also doesn't change the fact that I answered you already in a perfectly acceptable way.

BTW... you shouldn't have beaten your wife in the first place.

For your question there are 4 possible answers, but you only seem to want two. The 4 possible ones are:

A, B, Both are equally bad, Neither is bad

I answered the third way as the very first word of my answer proves:

Both cause enough problems to justify keeping them out.

The rest of the sentence just explains WHY I think they are equally bad.

If you have a further need of education in English, please look up a remedial class at your local community college.

#119 | Posted by moomanfl

You really think my question has to be Multiple Choice???

You Fucking Kidding Right???

Oh mY GoD, I have been arguing with a mental midget.

You don't have the ability to contrast and compare two simple items?

Really?

Look, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so limited that you cannot even answer an honest question unless it is on your narrow terms.

Forgive me.

Really,

I did not know you were so limited. I promise I will never ask you another thoughtful question because you are just not up to it.

I am sorry I called you moonchicken.

Multiple Choice???

Oh my god my side hurts I'm laughing so hard!!!

You really think my question has to be Multiple Choice???

You Fucking Kidding Right???

Oh mY GoD, I have been arguing with a mental midget.

You don't have the ability to contrast and compare two simple items?

Really?

Ok... then tell me genius:

Which answer to the following sums are greater:

2+2 or 1+3?

Now, by your logic, you can ONLY tell me which answer is greater. The answer of "they are equal" is not a valid answer by your logic, and answering with that simply means you are unable to contrast and compare and that you must be a mental midget.

You see, the ultimate root of your fallacy is that you are unable to accept an answer that you don't agree with. You see the choice as black or white. One MUST be worse than the other, therefore someone that believes they are both equally wrong is necessarily wrong.

Translation: You are a simpleton.

Take for example the question: Which is worse? Murdering a father of 4 children, or murdering an old lady who had no children?

Some might answer that murdering the father is worse.

However, some who believe ANY murder is completely and equally wrong, would say that neither is worse. They are both equally wrong since they are both murder.

You may not agree with one of those opinions. However that doesn't make the opinion invalid just because you don't agree.

However, you seem to be too stupid to figure this out. You just don't accept an answer that differs from your preconceived notions.

moon - there is no right or wrong answer. It is merely an opinion.

Black and White
White and Black

Either way it makes gray...

#123 | Posted by moomanfl

By the way your question deals with absolutes.

My dealt with opinion.

You are really, really going off on a tangent to prove you can think through a problem.

But you have yet to extend a valid counterargument.

But I know you will keep banging your head trying to outsmart me.

I was only interested in what you thought and you chose a weak way out and now you have dug in your heals and blaming me for you incompetence.

You are truly a Republican.

moon - there is no right or wrong answer. It is merely an opinion.

Black and White
White and Black

Either way it makes gray...

Gray however isn't black, and it isn't white. So trying to limit it to black and white is a false choice.

Logic isn't your forte. Either learn and improve, or stay in ignorance. Your choice. You just keep trying to justify your fallacies however... at this point in the discussion that just makes your present ignorance a willful one.

By the way your question deals with absolutes.

My dealt with opinion.

No. The accurate question would be:

"Do you feel one is worse than the other and if so, which one?"

That question recognizes the multiple answers possible.

You asked "which causes more problems?"

Which has the inherent premise that one is worse, and you are simply asking me to opine on which one is the worse one.

I reject that premise as I don't feel that one is worse than the other. I don't feel that one causes a significant number of problems over the other.

You didn't like my answer because it wasn't the either/or answer you looked for.

You started off by saying you would accept an answer of "both", then in the next sentence rejected the answer of "both" that I gave.

Not only did this make you a liar, but only served to prove that I was correct is pointing out that you tried to falsely limit the choices to either/or as a moronic and inept attempt at a logical trap.

Since then, you have spent all of your time trying to wiggle out of it and justify your question, and your response to my answer.

You have failed.

A smart person at this point would just let it go, admit the failure, and move on. Somehow I get the feeling you just aren't that smart.

#127 | Posted by moomanfl

Don't you recognize a tongue in cheek response?

By the way, gray is a shade of black as much as it is a shade of white. So it is both and neither.

And I have a problem with logic?

God you just keep setting yourself up don't you?

By the way, gray is a shade of black as much as it is a shade of white. So it is both and neither.

Incorrect, and a lame stretch.

Gray is neither black, nor white any more than my child can be said to actually be me just because it came from a mixture of my wife and I. If your equivalence was true, then if I committed a crime, it would be perfectly justifiable to arrest my child.

Green is not equal to yellow simply because yellow was a component that made it. Neither is it blue. Green is it's own color separate from the ones that made it and trying to paint them as interchangeable is a fallacy.

God you just keep setting yourself up don't you?

No, you do the setting up. I just knock them down.

#130 | Posted by moomanfl

You obviously have never studied art.

There are only a couple of primary colors. All other colors are shades and hues of those primary colors. So you are wrong.

Just because you say something is not true does not mean so. Keep that for your poor misguided kid.

And stop babbling.

Wouldn't these people get better treatment if they went back home?

No slow south America Is a he'll hole. The southern us is a terrible place but it is better than Mexico.

You obviously have never studied art.

Once again you show how little you know.

There are only a couple of primary colors.

Duh. We aren't talking about primary colors.

We are talking about equivalence.

The idea that a compound is necessarily equal to it's constituents.

If I ask for a black car, and a white car... you can't give me a gray car and claim I got what I asked for.

Any amount of "babbling" and obfuscation on your part doesn't make it so.

For that matter, if I just ask for a white car, and you bring me a gray car, you still can't claim to have completed the task simply because white is one of the constituent colors of gray.

Moom,

You ignorant......Black is not a color, it is absent of color.

Gray is neither black, nor white any more than my child can be said to actually be me just because it came from a mixture of my wife and I. If your equivalence was true, then if I committed a crime, it would be perfectly justifiable to arrest my child.
#130 | Posted by moomanfl

In color theory the compound is equal to it's constituents.
...

If I ask for a black car, and a white car... you can't give me a gray car and claim I got what I asked for.
#134 | Posted by moomanfl

If you ask for two cars why would I only give you one?

Your example doesn't fit your argument.

I asked you to stop babbling...

Runnysore:

While that is a technical answer, most people agree that for the sake of simplicity, black is indeed referred to as a color. Especially since to achieve it in paint, etc you must add a pigment.

If you really want to get that technical, then his statement that black and white choices (not referring to actual color but rather to opposite opinions) make gray is a fallacy. Since they are choices and opinions reflecting situations and can't necessarily be mixed as pigments can.

But I am sure you didn't REALLY mean to be that obtusely technical. Did you?

If I ask for a black car, and a white car... you can't give me a gray car and claim I got what I asked for.

#134 | Posted by moomanfl

Will you settle for a car that's both black and white?

I can send a cop car over to your place.

If you ask for two cars why would I only give you one?

The point again, is one of equivalence.

A concept that you just don't seem to understand. Since you totally miss the point with this question.

To bring this back to point.

You asked a question that by virtue of the structure of the question implied only a black or white answer was possible. I disagreed with that premise as I saw other answers were possible.

The flaw was that you worded your question to falsely limit the choices to only answers you were prepared to deal with.

When this was pointed out by getting a different answer than what you tried to force me to, you spent the remainder of the thread up till present trying to force me into your box.

Sorry. I don't agree that one of the choices you laid out was worse than the other. They are both equally bad. Both need to be addressed.

I can't help the mental defect that keeps you from understanding and accepting this answer. However that doesn't change the fact that I DID answer you, and did it truthfully.

Have fun, Prolapse. Your wiggling and squirming is boorish, and not getting you anywhere.

"black is indeed referred to as a color"

#138 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-04-23 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Another F in elementary physics; Figures; Links to "petitions" signed by fictional or dead people.

Chrominance: Color spectrum from infra red to ultraviolet. It can be expressed as a wavelength (Green is 5000 Angstroms), frequency, or photon energy.

Luminance: Gray scale; White is the equal combination of Red, Blue and Green. Ideally black is what you get in any colored room with NO LIGHT. But anything with a temperature above 0K (Which is everything we can detect.) is not truly black; That's why the Big Bang is still clearly visible if you have the right kind of eyes.

Black IS NOT a Color it's a shade.

Black IS NOT a Color it's a shade.

#142 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-04-23 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag: smarter than a fruit fly

Don't you mean republican business owners who contract with coyotes who supply slave labor?

#34 | POSTED BY PROLIX247 AT 2009-04-22 06:43 PM | REPLY | FLAG

No, I meant Hispanic farm labor contractors. Bet stands. If I meant coyotes, that's what I would have said.

Like I said, the answer is technically correct about black and white. However the technicality was useless in the context of our argument since we weren't arguing actual colors ultimately but rather opinions.

In addition, while the answer satisfies science, the fact that can purchase tubes of black paint which were made with pigments, means that for the sake of art black is sometimes lumped in with colors.

Since the idea of "mixing black and white" to get gray was an initial argument, I addressed it in that context.

#140 | Posted by moomanfl

It is very childish to think anything can be forced on you in an anonymous blog. Why do you think I answered you stupid wife beating question? It harms me in no way.

I merely asked for you opinion. You did not like my question so you attempted to be clever. I understand that. The old deflection of "Don't box me in," was your attempt at superiority. A truly white republican trait.

What I don't understand is your total reluctance to even slightly open your mind to answer the question asked?

What are you afraid of?

Anyone can say "both are bad." If you hold that simplistic view of life, Okay.

But I would hazard the reason you will not answer is because illegal drugs would be the obvious answer based on crime and death statistics alone.

But that is only my opinion.

You may have a valid opinion to believe illegal labor is more destructive. Who knows, you are afraid to speak up.

Instead here we are with a straw man debate about color, cars and equivalencies.

But alas, no substance about what this thread is all about.

So stop babbling...

#142 | Posted by LarryMohr

I would say black is both a shade and hue.

As black can make shades of gray and hues of dark red.

It is very childish to think anything can be forced on you in an anonymous blog.

I didn't say you COULD force me. I said you TRIED.

Obviously you didn't succeed, and that is why you keep whining that that I didn't answer your question. You found you couldn't force me to conform to your fallacy.

Just because you decided to conform to fallacy in my example question doesn't mean I should abandon reality as well in kind.

Now quit whining about your stupid false dichotomy and just accept that not everyone agrees with you.

#149 | Posted by moomanfl

I never expected for you to agree with me, that's why I asked the question, to get your opinion. Don't you come here to get differences in opinions? If not, why not try out an affinity site where you agree with everyone?

Your the one that claimed I attempted to box you in with my question. I simply asked a question.

Why are you afraid of answering?

Why are you afraid of answering?

Since I already answered your question as I have showed you in numerous posts since, the real question is:

Why are you afraid of acknowledging my answer?

#151 | Posted by moomanfl

I did acknowledge your answer was both. I also stated that that was an intellectually lazy answer.

You see moon, I have taken you around and around for the last day and a half attempting to get you to open up and have a dialog. I really did want to get your honest opinion to my question.

What I got was typical the republican superiority complex where you called me names and called me stupid and you have the only truth and you will teach it to me.

Hell I even apologized for me calling you moonchicken because I didn't want to disrespect you even though you were disrespecting me. I don't know you, you may be a good guy?

All this so in the end you can feel superior because you could not or would not answer a simple question that you took as a personal attack by a political enemy.

Good for you.

In my mind you look like a fool unwilling to explain his beliefs so we are even.

I tried and that is all I can do.

Good Night.

You can have the last word now...

I did acknowledge your answer was both.

you did not answer MY question you did a Palin and answered the question YOU wanted to.

#96 | Posted by Prolapse247 at 2009-04-23 03:26 PM

Why are you afraid to answer a simple question?

#107 | Posted by Prolapse247 at 2009-04-23 04:47 PM

Why are you afraid of answering?

#150 | Posted by Prolapse247 at 2009-04-23 08:22 PM

I also stated that that was an intellectually lazy answer.

Wrong. It just wasn't the answer you could formulate an answer to.

You see moon, I have taken you around and around for the last day and a half attempting to get you to open up and have a dialog.

Bullshit. You have done everything BUT try an honest dialog. Instead you try to pose fallacies as legitimate questions, then lie about whether they answered or not.

I have addressed every point you have brought up.

Try again, Prolapse.

Ah, those poor southern Latinos. If they're so exploited, why don't they leave America, where they ILLEGALLY reside?

I know we exploit the hell out of them here in our southern county.
Hell we do not even make them pay for those anchor babies or prenatal vitamins...it is all given to them free at the county health department.
Even worse...we then mistreat those anchor babies with followup care and vaccinations.

But then...after all...we ARE just a bunch of selfish rednecks.