Protests

[selenau837]

Why?

Because I said so.

 

[Rich]

Stuff like that will have more of an impact than boycotting.

I doubt it, the boycott will hurt your businesses

 

[selenau837]

I doubt it, the boycott will hurt your businesses

Apparently not in this situation.

 

[selenau837]

I doubt it, the boycott will hurt your businesses

Apparently not in this situation.

 

[Bodisathva]

You know, I had a huge windfall response, but thought better of it... so I'll diffuse with this:

Regardless of feelings and interpretations, there are rules that are to be followed. Throw out the touchy-feely stuff and enforce the rules. If we continue to cater to everyone who perceives a slight we are going to find ourselves in waaay over our heads and unable to find a way out. There are times, when for the collective good, feelings cannot be part of the decision making process.

1. I don't care how long they've been here.The longer they've been here, the more time they've had to make their presence legal.
2. I don't care how little they work for. If they were here legally, they would be paid at least minimum wage and be protected under the US Labor Laws.
   
3. I don't care if Barney Fife has been employing 36 illegals in a sweatshop for ten years at $.03/day. Punish him right along with the illegal work force.
   
4. I don't care if they like it here. I like Graceland, but if I just stroll on over the fence I don't think they'll let me live there.
   
5. I don't care if someone hurt their feelings and called them a bad name. It's called life. Get over it.
   
6. I don't care if a fence will force them into a desert crossing that is 90% fatal. Duh! Don't do that.

 

[selenau837]

You know, I had a huge windfall response, but thought better of it... so I'll diffuse with this:

Regardless of feelings and interpretations, there are rules that are to be followed. Throw out the touchy-feely stuff and enforce the rules. If we continue to cater to everyone who perceives a slight we are going to find ourselves in waaay over our heads and unable to find a way out. There are times, when for the collective good, feelings cannot be part of the decision making process.

1. I don't care how long they've been here.The longer they've been here, the more time they've had to make their presence legal.
2. I don't care how little they work for. If they were here legally, they would be paid at least minimum wage and be protected under the US Labor Laws.
   
3. I don't care if Barney Fife has been employing 36 illegals in a sweatshop for ten years at $.03/day. Punish him right along with the illegal work force.
   
4. I don't care if they like it here. I like Graceland, but if I just stroll on over the fence I don't think they'll let me live there.
   
5. I don't care if someone hurt their feelings and called them a bad name. It's called life. Get over it.
   
6. I don't care if a fence will force them into a desert crossing that is 90% fatal. Duh! Don't do that.

That about sums it up!

 

[Rich]

[*]I don't care how little they work for. If they were here legally, they would be paid at least minimum wage and be protected under the US Labor Laws.

[*]I don't care if Barney Fife has been employing 36 illegals in a sweatshop for ten years at $.03/day. Punish him right along with the illegal work force.

Is that why Bush has lowered the minimum wage for the re-construction in the wake of Katrina.
And just look at who's going to reap the benefit of this cheap labour, Haliburton. Do me a favour corruption starts at the top

 

[Bodisathva]

Is that why Bush has lowered the minimum wage for the re-construction in the wake of Katrina.

Not the minimum wage. The Davis-Bacon act of 1931 was basically to level the playing field for contractors working on government contracts. All he did was suspend the "prevailing" wage for the area. The benefits go to those who built their homes below sea-level and want to rebuild it there with government support.

 

[dan-cat]

[*]I don't care if someone hurt their feelings and called them a bad name. It's called life. Get over it.

No, it's called you don't care about people getting called names.

Unfortunately you will care about the potential consequences of this antagonistic standpoint. This is not a nerd at high school we're talking about. It's 11 million+ people. Poking this group of people with the insult-stick is a bit of a foolish thing to do don't you think?

Basically you've jumped from this:

Not at all...at no point in time have I needed to stoop to racial or societal slurs to get my point across...events and actions speak for themselves.

to this...

[*]I don't care if someone hurt their feelings and called them a bad name. It's called life. Get over it.

It's not about hurting people's feelings, it's about rhetoric. Language that is designed to influence the way you think. Language that you have adopted in your own postings. Once you convince yourself that these people are, say, a 'cancer' then you can come to all sorts of absurd conclusions. That is why I'm pulling you up on it.

 

[Rich]

Not the minimum wage. The Davis-Bacon act of 1931 was basically to level the playing field for contractors working on government contracts. All he did was suspend the "prevailing" wage for the area. The benefits go to those who built their homes below sea-level and want to rebuild it there with government support.

So it's ok for the State to pay below the "prevailing" wage, but not other employers?

 

[Bodisathva]

So it's ok for the State to pay below the "prevailing" wage, but not other employers?

The prevailing wage would be what the average, say, carpenter, would be paid in the area. If all carpenters average $20/hr then you cannot contract to the government as a carpenter for less. The minimum wage says we can't pay the kids at McDonald's less than $6/hr to flip hamburgers.

 

[KenHigg]

The prevailing wage would be what the average, say, carpenter, would be paid in the area. If all carpenters average $20/hr then you cannot contract to the government as a carpenter for less. The minimum wage says we can't pay the kids at McDonald's less than $6/hr to flip hamburgers.

Do they actually 'flip' the burgers or is that just a saying?

 

[Rich]

The prevailing wage would be what the average, say, carpenter, would be paid in the area.

But Bush has just lowered that surely?

 

[jsanders]

Well I decided to put in my two cents worth.

Dan,
Your only argument has been that the illegal aliens are more important than the Americans living here.

Well, that’s your opinion, thank God you are the vast minority.

 

[Kraj]

If I may, Dan's main argument is that it is hypocritical and unconcsionable to sanction illegal immigration while it serves our purposes to take advantage of them, and then turn around and blame them for society's ills and call them criminals.

I'm not convinced as to whether that point of view is accurate, but it is reasonable and valid nonetheless. Neither one of you is really listening to what the other has to say.

Oh, and as far as boycotting goes, all I have to say is... just try. How on earth can anyone boycott anything these days when just about everything you can purchase filters into a hanful of congolmerate corporations eventually. Sure, you can kill a small business or even hurt an individual location of such and such. But for the most part unless you refuse to purchase anything at all, ever, you're not really going to make much of a difference. <-- BTW, that's just my personal perception. I have no data to back up my claim.

Do they actually 'flip' the burgers or is that just a saying?

Depends on how you define "burger".

 

[Rich]

Well I decided to put in my two cents worth.

Dan,
Your only argument has been that the illegal aliens are more important than the Americans living here.
.

No I think he's saying that they are your equals and shouldn't keep being seen as somehow inferior

 

[dan-cat]

If I may, Dan's main argument is that it is hypocritical and unconcsionable to sanction illegal immigration while it serves our purposes to take advantage of them, and then turn around and blame them for society's ills and call them criminals.

You're most of the way there, apart from the fact that I do accept that they are illegal and still must face the penalty of the law. It's a 2-way relationship. Both sides have entered this 'illegal' relationship and thus both sides must take responsibility for it. If you begin the resolution process with the premise that it is all the 'illegals' fault then you are not accepting the true cause of the situation. Using terms like 'cancer' and 'infestation' is completely unnecessary and actually down-right dangerous when it comes to dealing with 11 million+ people who are marching our streets in protest.

Neither one of you is really listening to what the other has to say.

Errrm - I have pretty much agreed with most of what J has had to say apart from his use of language. Most of his points could have been validly made with just as much conviction without the derogatory labelling. There is no need for it, it serves no positive purpose and it obscures the reality of the situation.

 

[jsanders]

Hey Kraj,
In the past you have pointed out that I am putting words in your mouth or otherwise telling you how you are thinking.

Well, that’s what you just did.

I read the entire thread before making a comment that wasn’t supposed to be funny.

My only point is that The United States will become Mexico, or worse, and the mission to divide and conquer the middle class will have been won.

So why bother to flee you home land if all your going to do is to incorporate your peasant ways in the new country.

This is an old story for these folks.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

 

[dan-cat]

No I think he's saying that they are your equals and shouldn't keep being seen as somehow inferior

On a base level yes. It's the 'if you cut me then do I not bleed' scenario.

This opinion often gets confused with the idea that I support amnesty. This is false. A valid law must be upheld. However, illegal immigrants are performing a perfectly natural act - it is called migration. The europeans performed the same act hundreds of years ago, the law of the land was different back then so their status was not universally deemed 'illegal'.

The law is different now, that is fine, but the act of migration is EXACTLY THE SAME. They are no less human for performing this act and there is nothing insidious about it.

So when the INS starts to process the deporteees back to their home countries, I pray that they are looked upon as human beings in search of a better life, NOT as a sarcoma.

 

[dan-cat]

My only point is that The United States will become Mexico, or worse, and the mission to divide and conquer the middle class will have been won.

So why bother to flee you home land if all your going to do is to incorporate your peasant ways in the new country.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Are you saying that every Mexiccan who crosses the border is on a conquering mission? Are you saying that is the conscious intent of each illegal immigrant?

This is where I get confused with your opinion. Do you believe that the harmful effects of this immigration process is actually contrived by the individual 'peasant' or is it simply a side-effect of their search for a better life of which they are unaware?