That is why I asked. I wasn't being flippant. Language is a beautiful thing... words weaved correctly can inspire love or hatred. Take for example these two words tagged (graffiti ) on overpass in El Paso around 1974....BOMB Culture... so are we a Bomb culture with bombs ready to be deployed to kill enemies? Or more anarchist like and destroy our culture? Or in today's street speak. Culture is the bomb...bitchin, groovy, rad? See where I am going... the last one was probably not the authors intent since it is current. Since it was the 70's it was most likely the first but I don't know for sure. This exit leads to one the affluent areas of town. Coincidence? Anyways words are power. On Mar 14, 2016 6:35 AM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since you are referring to something misspelled or a correctly spelled > word placed in the wrong place, I assume you are referring to a post I > made. > Just insert whatever word or phrase makes me seem the smartest to you and > that is what I meant. > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:29 AM Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Good morning. Enacted vs in-acted ? Your phone has a strange sense of >> phrasing... sarcasm? >> On Mar 14, 2016 6:19 AM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Every government action has unintended consequences. The fact that they >>> have to be in-acted for a general problem with general solutions means that >>> they fit only a small portion of the situations with any appropriateness. >>> Everyone else just gets jammed through the same hole as the few that are >>> the peg. >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:35 PM Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That's a tough one. >>>> >>>> On one hand, with the government already giving out welfare checks that >>>> could help with labor costs on small and medium farms - work the farm, get >>>> a check. So, what's to encourage a farmer to pay more than minimum wage >>>> (discouraging potential applicants internationally) if he can just tell the >>>> Fed "send me workers". >>>> >>>> I also personally know cases of very good high level workers in various >>>> industries who had problems for over a year finding a job - but once they >>>> finally did after hundreds of applications, they were back to making six >>>> figures or higher. It's hard to work somewhere for 20 years or more and >>>> retire there unless in government or state work. >>>> >>>> Decent idea, but it would need some controls in place so it doesn't >>>> cause inadvertent issues. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> On Mar 13, 2016 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I got to thinking about the labor issue with the farms. I’m having a >>>>> hard time understanding how we can have tens of millions of people on >>>>> government assistance and we can’t find farm workers. I’d like to make >>>>> working on farms or other businesses being a requirement for a welfare >>>>> check. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rory >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Josh Reynolds >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:09 PM >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Anti-immigration - Puck 1893 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some are here for jobs, some are here to escape massive corruption and >>>>> drug cartels. These are jobs that most American's don't want to do - >>>>> either >>>>> the work is "too hard" or pay "too low" - which really the latter is true. >>>>> I came from a farm community (Kentucky Tobacco) and have seen how hard >>>>> they >>>>> work. Many have two or three jobs, and they share a trailer and a truck. >>>>> They take shifts sleeping on the available beds, and send most of their >>>>> checks home to their families to take care of them. Some save to bring >>>>> their families here. Very few of these workers were paid minimum wage, but >>>>> they were often given a trailer to stay in (for the group). Rows and rows >>>>> of trailers per farm. >>>>> >>>>> You deport these guys, American agriculture will suffer. The farm >>>>> subsidies get sucked up by the conglomerates, and the regular guys get >>>>> very >>>>> little. >>>>> >>>>> The drug demand has nothing to do with illegal or legal. Have you ever >>>>> done any drugs? Ever? My guess is no, but I've been wrong before - ask my >>>>> wife! Drugs are an escape, a booster, and the harder ones are ruthlessly >>>>> addictive, both physically and psychologically. Just once or twice is >>>>> enough to make it very difficult if not impossible to overcome by >>>>> yourself, >>>>> if ever. And they are SO CHEAP (meth, heroin). >>>>> >>>> On Mar 13, 2016 8:49 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> Really, you think we would have massive illegal immigration if we had >>>>> no jobs being offered then? >>>>> You also believe that if nobody demanded drugs there would be people >>>>> killing each other to get it here? >>>>> We can disagree on if punishing a drug user is either right it would >>>>> make any difference on then wanting the drug. But you surely cannot argue >>>>> that it is demand that drives the supply, not the other way around. >>>>> My point is just that the demand for cheap labor and the willingness >>>>> to break the law to get it drives illegal immigration. I think you are >>>>> letting your desire for penalty fee drug use get in the way of your >>>>> judgement. >>>>> OK, I made that last part up but you really don't understand the >>>>> basics of supply and demand? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 8:08 PM Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> agreed >>>>> >>>>> Legal or illegal, has nothing to do with drugs. If people want to do >>>>> something they will. >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 13, 2016 7:28 PM, "Jerry Head" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> " Kind of like the drug problem. As long as you don't penalize the >>>>> user you get increasing demand." >>>>> >>>>> This has got to be one of the most ignorant comments I have ever seen >>>>> on this list. >>>>> Wow.... >>>>> >>>>> On 3/13/2016 6:35 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I agree with that. Kind of like the drug problem. As long as you don't >>>>> penalize the user you get increasing demand. If you don't punish the >>>>> employer you get increasing demand. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 2:56 PM Jaime Solorza <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Far less than many believe.... you need documentation which of course >>>>> can be faked...but percentage wise more welfare in southern states. Most >>>>> undocumented workers fend for themselves holding two or three shit jobs no >>>>> one wants. See who is working on highways late at night or in hot sun in >>>>> Texas...a white foreman and ton of Hispanics.... I have travelled just >>>>> about every rode in Texas.... go to Chile harvests in Hatch,NM. Like I >>>>> said..no demand, no supply.... simple Adam Smith theory in action. >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 13, 2016 1:06 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Immigration should have been unfettered in 1893 because there was no >>>>> welfare state in existence then. The combination of unrestricted >>>>> immigration and a comprehensive welfare system has the potential to >>>>> bankrupt the U.S. I have no idea if immigrants make up a larger part of >>>>> the >>>>> welfare system than any other, just that the potential is there. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016, 11:35 AM Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>
