President Bush is doing well.

[JD]

Subject: Our worst president?

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was
the worst president in U.S. history.

Let's clear up one point: America didn't start the war on terror. Try to
remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR sent our military into World War II in Europe..... Germany never
attacked us: ..........Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and sent our military to Korea.... North Korea
never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy sent our military to the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were
lost, an average of 5,800 per year.



Clinton sent our military to war in Bosnia without UN or French
consent..... Bosnia never attacked us.... Clinton was offered Osama bin
Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has
attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear
inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost
600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not
allowing another terrorist attack at home.

...............................Worst president in history? Come on!

[Pechs1]

JD writes-<< Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They
complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was
the worst president in U.S. history. >><BR><BR>
<< Let's clear up one point: America didn't start the war on terror. Try to
remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11. >><BR><BR>
<< Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR sent our military into World War II in Europe..... Germany never
attacked us: ..........Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. >><BR><BR>


You aren't really this clueless are you?

If the US wants to 'fight terrorism' they ought to invade Saudi Arabia, not
Iraq.

And to equate the situation in the late 30's and early 40's, with Japan and
Germany bent on conquering all of the east and west, including the UK and
Australia to what's going on with the war in Iraq,
that is looney thinky.

Like somebody said and I paraphrase..'Bush is not FDR'...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[José Herculano]

> If the US wants to 'fight terrorism' they ought to invade Saudi Arabia,
not
> Iraq.

Sorry to disagree with you, Pechs, but that would never do. Yes, I am with
you in the belief that the Saudis do foment terrorism FAR more than the
Iraqis, however an invasion of the Saudi soil can only happen in a full war
against the muslim world, a situation that is very far indeed from what we
have now. If you invaded their holly cities of Mecca and Medina, you would
have an imediate bona fide holly war in your hands, not some squirmishes -
however hard and brutal - with some radical screwballs. The you'd have
terrorism up the whazzoo.

It is a blasted situation. The strategy of using Iraq as a "virus" state to
corrode the radicals in the region might or might not work, but then again
what in hell is going to work there... a big chunk of space rock
obliterating Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem and leaving the rest of the world
alone. Better still, develop some real technologies that make oil obsolete,
and let them at each other's throats like they've been doing ever since
Moses.
_____________
José Herculano

[Krztalizer]

>Better still, develop some real technologies that make oil obsolete,
>and let them at each other's throats like they've been doing ever since
>Moses.

Jose, you nailed it right on the head. If we made oil a nearly worthless
commodity, suddenly everything from the mid east would be back page news.
Then, they can dicker over who is 'holier' and all return to the 1400s like
they wish. Of course, nothing will change as long as we are dependent upon
them for their one natural resource, but it sure will be fun to watch when we
no longer need it!

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Rick Folkers]

What a bunch of horse****. You don't rate presidents on one issue.

But let's clear one thing up. Iraq was not tied either to 9/11 or to
Al queda. And there were no WMD's . Bush lied.

But beyond his foreign policy, which except for his lies I mainly support,
the
son of a Bitch lied to start his war and then used the war to take away
freedoms
I fought to protect.; He then allowed foreign workers to take over American
jobs and is proposing more of the same. And for what? because his big
business
buddies don't want to play fair market with American workers. Big Business
decides
they don't like the wages they have to pay so they claim they cannot get
workers,
when the truth is they can't get wages for what they are paying. So the
Pres allows them
to bring in foreigners at lower rates. Then the Americans are laid off,
they can't buy,
and more American laborers are laid off.

I don't know if he is the worst or not, but he is definitely in the bottom 5
"JD" > wrote in message
news:rNMYb.339336$I06.3543233@attbi_s01...
> Subject: Our worst president?
>
> Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They
> complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush
was
> the worst president in U.S. history.
>
> Let's clear up one point: America didn't start the war on terror. Try to
> remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.
>
> Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.
>
> FDR sent our military into World War II in Europe..... Germany never
> attacked us: ..........Japan did. From
> 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
>
> Truman finished that war and sent our military to Korea.... North Korea
> never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
> 18,333 per year.
>
> John F. Kennedy sent our military to the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam
> never attacked us.
>
> Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were
> lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
>
>
>
> Clinton sent our military to war in Bosnia without UN or French
> consent..... Bosnia never attacked us.... Clinton was offered Osama bin
> Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama
has
> attacked us on multiple occasions.
>
> In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
> liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put
nuclear
> inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
> captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost
> 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while
not
> allowing another terrorist attack at home.
>
> ...............................Worst president in history? Come on!
>
>

[Pechs1]

Jose-<< f the US wants to 'fight terrorism' they ought to invade Saudi Arabia,
not
> Iraq.

Sorry to disagree with you, Pechs, but that would never do. Yes, I am with
you in the belief that the Saudis do foment terrorism FAR more than the
Iraqis, however an invasion of the Saudi soil can only happen in a full war
against the muslim world, >><BR><BR>


snipped, of course I agree with you. Just trying to make the point about pre
WWll and today, about 'fighting terrorism' and fighting the Nazis and the
Japanese.

Going to WWll does not make FDR a bad president and going to war in Iraq does
not make Bush a 'good' president.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

rick-<< But let's clear one thing up. Iraq was not tied either to 9/11 or to
Al queda. And there were no WMD's . Bush lied. >><BR><BR>

I don't think he lied, he just pretty clueless...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

I apologize in advance here, folks. I usually try not to respond to OT
posts but...

On 2/19/04 10:51 PM, in article
, "Rick Folkers"
> wrote:

> What a bunch of horse****. You don't rate presidents on one issue.
>
> But let's clear one thing up. Iraq was not tied either to 9/11 or to
> Al queda. And there were no WMD's . Bush lied.
>

President Bush did not necessarily lie. By stating that, you make a huge
assumption based on your own obvious predispositions.

Hussein *did* have WMD prior to the Gulf War. It is a fact. It was
reasonable for the president to conclude that Iraq *still* had WMD (despite
his statements to the contrary) given Saddam Hussein's

-- Poor record on truth-telling in the past
-- Posturing and unwillingness to allow U.N. Inspectors access to verify his
lack of WMD.
-- His willingness to use WMD in the past, his support of terrorism, his
hatred of the U.S.

and

-- The intelligence that suggested Iraq was attempting to build up a program

Remember, that intel was flawed partially because it was restricted on the
sources it could use for HUMINT.

The question isn't: "Did Saddam Hussein possess WMD?"

He did. In fact, he used it.

The question is: "Where did the WMD go?" and perhaps "When did they go?"
Given the quagmire in post-war Iraq, we may never find out the real truth.

The majority of the country supported the war in Iraq before the war.
Secretary Powell made a good case for war in front of the U.N., but even in
the worst case, if Iraq's WMD program was, in fact, impotent, the end
justifies the means because,

-- Yet another evil dictator has been removed from power.
-- The U.S. has a means to remove itself from the Operation Southern Watch
quagmire that it had been involved in for 12 years.
-- Libya has decided to follow suit and come clean.

The real mistake was for the previous President Bush to fail to go into Iraq
in 1991 to remove Saddam Hussein from power when it would have been more
justifiable in the court of public opinion. To leave Saddam Hussein in
power for an additional 12 years thinking we could contain him or that he
would change was naïve.

Let's also not forget the president's (GWB's) leadership immediately after
9/11, his success in Afghanistan, his tax cut program, his prescription drug
program, and his ability to turn the post 9/11 economy around.

> But beyond his foreign policy, which except for his lies I mainly support,
> the son of a Bitch lied to start his war and then used the war to take away
> freedoms I fought to protect.;

What freedoms? The constitution and its amendments have not been changed.

> He then allowed foreign workers to take over American
> jobs and is proposing more of the same. And for what? because his big
> business buddies don't want to play fair market with American workers.
> Big Business decides
> they don't like the wages they have to pay so they claim they cannot get
> workers, when the truth is they can't get wages for what they are paying.

Why do they *have* to pay those wages? We have a free market economy.
What's a fair market economy? Sounds like socialism.

> So the Pres allows them
> to bring in foreigners at lower rates. Then the Americans are laid off,
> they can't buy, and more American laborers are laid off.
>

You're making no sense here. Jobless rates are declining. The economy is
on the turnaround, and the likely alternative to President Bush in the
coming election will be John Kerry (as Rob Schneider put it: "He's Ted
Kennedy without the booze and hookers.")

--Woody

[Bill Kambic]

"Rick Folkers" wrote in message

> What a bunch of horse****. You don't rate presidents on one issue.

Indeed.

> But let's clear one thing up. Iraq was not tied either to 9/11 or to
> Al queda. And there were no WMD's . Bush lied.

Ever hear the phrase "fog of war?" Could that phrase be relevant in this
instance?

To the Professional Bush Haters the answer is a resounding "NO!" To anyone
with some experience who considers it the answer must be, "Well, could be."

Those who say there were no WMDs are the liars. There was one. His name
was Saddam Hussein.

> But beyond his foreign policy, which except for his lies I mainly support,
> the
> son of a Bitch lied to start his war and then used the war to take away
> freedoms
> I fought to protect.; He then allowed foreign workers to take over
American
> jobs and is proposing more of the same. And for what? because his big
> business
> buddies don't want to play fair market with American workers. Big
Business
> decides
> they don't like the wages they have to pay so they claim they cannot get
> workers,
> when the truth is they can't get wages for what they are paying. So the
> Pres allows them
> to bring in foreigners at lower rates. Then the Americans are laid off,
> they can't buy,
> and more American laborers are laid off.

So what do we do? Pass laws prohibiting the transfer of jobs offshore? The
people who are here unlawfully are generally doing work citizens won't do
(like hard physical labor in the landscape industry or demeaning jobs like
bussing tables and doing dishes elsewhere or stooped over in fields picking
stuff for your table). Should we round 'em all up and have an "illegal
alien drive"? If we do that who's gonna cut your grass or clean up after at
at Applebees or fill your larder with produce and mushrooms?

> I don't know if he is the worst or not, but he is definitely in the bottom
5

Name that bottom five for us. It will give us some insight into your
evaluation criteria.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Pechs1]

Bill-<< The
people who are here unlawfully are generally doing work citizens won't do
(like hard physical labor in the landscape industry or demeaning jobs like
bussing tables and doing dishes elsewhere or stooped over in fields picking
stuff for your table). Should we round 'em all up and have an "illegal
alien drive"? >><BR><BR>

Yes, the operative word here is 'illegal'. What other laws are ok to break? If
the gent is doing a service for the city, county, etc, it's ok for them to
break the law??


Bill<< If we do that who's gonna cut your grass or clean up after at
at Applebees or fill your larder with produce and mushrooms? >><BR><BR>

The problem isn't citizens not wanting to do the work, it is employers who hire
these people breaking the law to save $, savings that are not passed on to you.
Plus the corrupt country that the individual chooses to leave(read-Mexico).

Our borders are a walk in the country to anybody that wants to come here. Money
should be allocated to protect our borders, period. Applebees will find
somebody to bus tables, believe me.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Bill Kambic]

"Pechs1" wrote in message

> Bill-<< The
> people who are here unlawfully are generally doing work citizens won't do
> (like hard physical labor in the landscape industry or demeaning jobs like
> bussing tables and doing dishes elsewhere or stooped over in fields
picking
> stuff for your table). Should we round 'em all up and have an "illegal
> alien drive"? >><BR><BR>
>
> Yes, the operative word here is 'illegal'. What other laws are ok to
break? If
> the gent is doing a service for the city, county, etc, it's ok for them to
> break the law??

No, not at all. Yet there are about 10-12 million of them. Or, as Lenin
once put it, "Quantity is a quality of its own."<g>

The only reason they are "illegal" is because a statute or regulation makes
them so. Crossing an artificial line is not a crime "malum in se." IMO
most of the these statutes and regulations are nothing more than an
expression of hostility towards little, brown men who don't speak English.
If our southern neighbor were Sweden or Germany and the illegals all looked
like Anita Ekberg or Ursula Andress (or maybe Rutger Hauer) then I don't
think we would be having this discussion. A brief walk through U.S.
immigration law (including its roots in the hostility towards such "inferior
races" as Irishmen, Dutchmen, etc.) might give you different perspective.

If figure anybody who wants to work should get a big, "COME ON DOWN!"

> Bill<< If we do that who's gonna cut your grass or clean up after at
> at Applebees or fill your larder with produce and mushrooms? >><BR><BR>
>
> The problem isn't citizens not wanting to do the work, it is employers who
hire
> these people breaking the law to save $, savings that are not passed on to
you.

Well, no.

Ever try to hire agricultural labor? I have offered as much as $15/hr. cash
and had no takers for such tasks as bucking hay, weedeating fencelines,
mucking stalls, etc. I can make a quick trip over to Lenoir City and hire a
crew for an 8 hour day at $50/head. And those sons of bitches will work
their butts off for that $50 (where if I hire 'Mericans I will have to do
constant "over the shoulder" supervision).

My friends in the industries noted tell me the similar stories.

> Plus the corrupt country that the individual chooses to
leave(read-Mexico).

Indeed.

> Our borders are a walk in the country to anybody that wants to come here.
Money
> should be allocated to protect our borders, period. Applebees will find
> somebody to bus tables, believe me.

I agree on a system of regularization. The idea that you can slam the door
shut and nail it tight is fantasy.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Krztalizer]

Woody, by that rationale, we need to sortie our invasion forces immediately to
attack Iran and North Korea at a minimum. We know they have WMD, we know
they'll use them. Ergo, we go to war immediately, without anyone agreeing with
us.

No matter how frustrating it is to deal with the UN, we either use them as the
'oversight committee' for the world, or we take on the role of Big Brother for
the rest of humanity. Given that we turned out to be wrong in this case, I
imagine it will only be one or two more such incidents before we have sanctions
placed upon us, for the very reason that we put them on others.

George Bush declared Saddam would be gone. Two presidential cycles later, his
son took power and completed his father's tasking; WMD was an excuse to give
his 'change of regime' plan some validity.

As for the well-known and often mentioned chem attack on the Kurdish village -
the CIA released information that the chemicals used did not match the
fingerprint of Iraqi stocks, but did match the gas in Iranian inventory. But
since that CIA report two, three years ago, it seems to have been forgotten and
Saddam gets the blame. Did he use agents in combat? With surity - but not in
that case that seems to be ritually used to prove Bush's case against him.

I think if Bush had come right out and said, "This turd needs to get flushed
but instead of using a flimsy excuse that 80% of the world will not agree with,
I am going to finish the job my dad started," folks would have had less trouble
with his decision to unilaterally invade another country.

v/r
Gordon

[Michael Wise]

In article >, "Bill Kambic" >
wrote:


> The only reason they are "illegal" is because a statute or regulation makes
> them so.

The only reason murder is illegal because some silly statute or
regulation makes it so.


> Crossing an artificial line is not a crime "malum in se."

When that artficial line happens to be a sovereign nation's border and
you lack legal standing to do so...it is a crime.



> > Bill<< If we do that who's gonna cut your grass or clean up after at
> > at Applebees or fill your larder with produce and mushrooms? >><BR><BR>
> >
> > The problem isn't citizens not wanting to do the work, it is employers who
> hire
> > these people breaking the law to save $, savings that are not passed on to
> you.
>
> Well, no.
>
> Ever try to hire agricultural labor? I have offered as much as $15/hr. cash
> and had no takers for such tasks as bucking hay, weedeating fencelines,
> mucking stalls, etc. I can make a quick trip over to Lenoir City and hire a
> crew for an 8 hour day at $50/head. And those sons of bitches will work
> their butts off for that $50 (where if I hire 'Mericans I will have to do
> constant "over the shoulder" supervision).


Great, so he illegally comes on down with his wife and children to work
your plantation for a periodic $50/day. In the meantime, where does the
money to pay for his and his family's health care come from? Where does
the money to school his children come from?



Are you willing to assume the real costs of health care, education, law
enforcement, etc. spent on these workers? Or are you just content to get
cheap illegal labor and let the tax-payers foot the bill for all the
city, county, and state services these people use?

Not a bad gig you got going: get the benefits of cheap labor while
making society as a whole pay the real costs.


--Mike

[Yofuri]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> Woody, by that rationale, we need to sortie our invasion forces
immediately to
> attack Iran and North Korea at a minimum. We know they have WMD, we know
> they'll use them. Ergo, we go to war immediately, without anyone agreeing
with
> us.
>
> No matter how frustrating it is to deal with the UN, we either use them as
the
> 'oversight committee' for the world, or we take on the role of Big Brother
for
> the rest of humanity. Given that we turned out to be wrong in this case,
I
> imagine it will only be one or two more such incidents before we have
sanctions
> placed upon us, for the very reason that we put them on others.
>
> George Bush declared Saddam would be gone. Two presidential cycles later,
his
> son took power and completed his father's tasking; WMD was an excuse to
give
> his 'change of regime' plan some validity.
>
> As for the well-known and often mentioned chem attack on the Kurdish
village -
> the CIA released information that the chemicals used did not match the
> fingerprint of Iraqi stocks, but did match the gas in Iranian inventory.
But
> since that CIA report two, three years ago, it seems to have been
forgotten and
> Saddam gets the blame. Did he use agents in combat? With surity - but
not in
> that case that seems to be ritually used to prove Bush's case against him.
>
> I think if Bush had come right out and said, "This turd needs to get
flushed
> but instead of using a flimsy excuse that 80% of the world will not agree
with,
> I am going to finish the job my dad started," folks would have had less
trouble
> with his decision to unilaterally invade another country.
>
> v/r
> Gordon

Isn't it amazing how we ignore/revise history when politically convenient?
The Iraqi Liberation Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of
360 to 38; the Senate vote was unanimous. Please note the content of the
Act, and, most especially, its date:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

Where are all those big Congressional boosters today? Are they buried in a
trench somewhere above or below the WMD?

Also, the date that the House of Representatives formally commenced
investigation of a potential impeachment may be more than just a
coincidence.

Just a bit of bipartisan musing over a couple of the many "October
Surprises" in our political history...

Rick





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Bill Kambic]

"Michael Wise" wrote in message

> > The only reason they are "illegal" is because a statute or regulation
makes
> > them so.
>
> The only reason murder is illegal because some silly statute or
> regulation makes it so.

No, Sir.

Murder is a crime "malum in se" (wrong in itself) in every culture I am
aware of. So is stealing and lying.

> > Crossing an artificial line is not a crime "malum in se."
>
> When that artficial line happens to be a sovereign nation's border and
> you lack legal standing to do so...it is a crime.

I agree it's a crime; but it's a crime "malum prohibitum" (wrong because
it's forbidden) not an act that is wrong in and of itself.

> > > Bill<< If we do that who's gonna cut your grass or clean up after at
> > > at Applebees or fill your larder with produce and mushrooms?
>><BR><BR>
> > >
> > > The problem isn't citizens not wanting to do the work, it is employers
who
> > hire
> > > these people breaking the law to save $, savings that are not passed
on to
> > you.
> >
> > Well, no.
> >
> > Ever try to hire agricultural labor? I have offered as much as $15/hr.
cash
> > and had no takers for such tasks as bucking hay, weedeating fencelines,
> > mucking stalls, etc. I can make a quick trip over to Lenoir City and
hire a
> > crew for an 8 hour day at $50/head. And those sons of bitches will work
> > their butts off for that $50 (where if I hire 'Mericans I will have to
do
> > constant "over the shoulder" supervision).
>
>
> Great, so he illegally comes on down with his wife and children to work
> your plantation for a periodic $50/day. In the meantime, where does the
> money to pay for his and his family's health care come from? Where does
> the money to school his children come from?

He does not have any of these benefits in TN.

e you willing to assume the real costs of health care, education, law
> enforcement, etc. spent on these workers? Or are you just content to get
> cheap illegal labor and let the tax-payers foot the bill for all the
> city, county, and state services these people use?
>
> Not a bad gig you got going: get the benefits of cheap labor while
> making society as a whole pay the real costs.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm pointing out an economic reality that those
who specialize in hatred of those not like them don't ever care to
acknowledge.

Note, also, that I never said I hired any of these guys, only that I could
if I wished.

The answer is not 10 divisions on the southern border, but a system that
recognizes reality and does not pander to the prejudices of those who hate
anybody not like themselves.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Michael Wise]

In article >, "Bill Kambic" >
wrote:


> > > The only reason they are "illegal" is because a statute or regulation
> makes
> > > them so.
> >
> > The only reason murder is illegal because some silly statute or
> > regulation makes it so.
>
> No, Sir.
>
> Murder is a crime "malum in se" (wrong in itself) in every culture I am
> aware of. So is stealing and lying.
>
> > > Crossing an artificial line is not a crime "malum in se."
> >
> > When that artficial line happens to be a sovereign nation's border and
> > you lack legal standing to do so...it is a crime.
>
> I agree it's a crime; but it's a crime "malum prohibitum" (wrong because
> it's forbidden) not an act that is wrong in and of itself.


So you're saying its OK for you disregard or flout any law you
like....provided the law is "malum prohibitum"?



> > > > Bill<< If we do that who's gonna cut your grass or clean up after at
> > > > at Applebees or fill your larder with produce and mushrooms?
> >><BR><BR>
> > > >
> > > > The problem isn't citizens not wanting to do the work, it is employers
> who
> > > hire
> > > > these people breaking the law to save $, savings that are not passed
> on to
> > > you.
> > >
> > > Well, no.
> > >
> > > Ever try to hire agricultural labor? I have offered as much as $15/hr.
> cash
> > > and had no takers for such tasks as bucking hay, weedeating fencelines,
> > > mucking stalls, etc. I can make a quick trip over to Lenoir City and
> hire a
> > > crew for an 8 hour day at $50/head. And those sons of bitches will work
> > > their butts off for that $50 (where if I hire 'Mericans I will have to
> do
> > > constant "over the shoulder" supervision).
> >
> >
> > Great, so he illegally comes on down with his wife and children to work
> > your plantation for a periodic $50/day. In the meantime, where does the
> > money to pay for his and his family's health care come from? Where does
> > the money to school his children come from?
>
> He does not have any of these benefits in TN.


BS. What happens when he or any one of his family members get sick,
pregnant or injured? Are you saying hospital emergency rooms turn them
away? If not, who pays??

What do his school-age kids do during the day? They go to school. Who
pays for that?

When an illegal alien is involved in a crime (whether it be as a victim
or a perpetrator), who pays for the law enforcement costs? The
prosecution costs? The incarceration costs?

It's great you can find people to work their asses off on your
plantation for $50/day...but all you're doing is personally profitting
from illegal labor....while letting your neighbors pay the real cost of
that cheap illegal labor.


>
> e you willing to assume the real costs of health care, education, law
> > enforcement, etc. spent on these workers? Or are you just content to get
> > cheap illegal labor and let the tax-payers foot the bill for all the
> > city, county, and state services these people use?
> >
> > Not a bad gig you got going: get the benefits of cheap labor while
> > making society as a whole pay the real costs.
>
> I'm not saying it's right,


I see. At least you have the balls to admit what you're doing is wrong
that you are perfectly content to make your neighbors pay the real costs
of your cheap labor.


> I'm pointing out an economic reality that those
> who specialize in hatred of those not like them don't ever care to
> acknowledge.


You're the only person mentioning hatred of anybody here. Obviously
you're well-versed in defending your wrong (by your own admission) and
illegal ways by trying to make it an argument about race.


> Note, also, that I never said I hired any of these guys, only that I could
> if I wished

You said:

> Ever try to hire agricultural labor? I have offered as much as $15/hr. cash
> and had no takers for such tasks as bucking hay, weedeating fencelines,
> mucking stalls, etc. I can make a quick trip over to Lenoir City and hire a
> crew for an 8 hour day at $50/head. And those sons of bitches will work
> their butts off for that $50 (where if I hire 'Mericans I will have to do
> constant "over the shoulder" supervision).


How can you possibly know you can get illegal labor for $50/day if you
hadn't in fact done so? How can you possibly know those "sons of
bitches" will works their asses of for that $50 if you hadn't hired
those "sons of bitches"?

>
> The answer is not 10 divisions on the southern border, but a system that
> recognizes reality and does not pander to the prejudices of those who hate
> anybody not like themselves.


I'm sure that dog-eared race card of yours sits in your shirt pocket for
quick use as a red herring tool for you, but you're the only person here
talking about hate.



--Mike

[Bill Kambic]

"Michael Wise" wrote in message

> So you're saying its OK for you disregard or flout any law you
> like....provided the law is "malum prohibitum"?

Maybe. Rosa Parks was committing a crime when she refused to move to the
back of the bus. Most of our Founders were not only felons but traitors in
1775. Kinds of depends on the circumstances.

> > I'm not saying it's right,
>
> I see. At least you have the balls to admit what you're doing is wrong
> that you are perfectly content to make your neighbors pay the real costs
> of your cheap labor.

I said I never hired them; only that I knew where to do so. I also can take
you to most of the active drug locations in the county. If you want a hit
man I can probably point you in that direction, too. Not that I would, only
that I could.

Since I work as a part time prosecutor in our local DA's office I try to
conform my personal behavior to the standard of Ceasar's Wife. Or, put
another way, I know more than I do.

If you were a Naval Aviator then I would bet that in your career you made
one or more choices to violate some regulation 'cause in your view at the
time it was a Good Thing to do. Indeed, if you ever wore anybody's uniform
at any rank or rate I suspect that you have done the same thing.

> > I'm pointing out an economic reality that those
> > who specialize in hatred of those not like them don't ever care to
> > acknowledge.
>
You're the only person mentioning hatred of anybody here. Obviously
> you're well-versed in defending your wrong (by your own admission) and
> illegal ways by trying to make it an argument about race.

I have committed no wrong. I only point out this wrong is determined by the
vagarities of time time and place, not some external code of morality. This
concept clearly escapes you.

> > Note, also, that I never said I hired any of these guys, only that I
could
> > if I wished
>
> You said:
>
> > Ever try to hire agricultural labor? I have offered as much as $15/hr.
cash
> > and had no takers for such tasks as bucking hay, weedeating fencelines,
> > mucking stalls, etc. I can make a quick trip over to Lenoir City and
hire a
> > crew for an 8 hour day at $50/head. And those sons of bitches will work
> > their butts off for that $50 (where if I hire 'Mericans I will have to
do
> > constant "over the shoulder" supervision).
>
> How can you possibly know you can get illegal labor for $50/day if you
> hadn't in fact done so?

How do you know what the speed of light is? Did you personally measure it?
Or are you sentient enought to be able to read a book. Or talk to
neighbors? Or watch CNN?

Personal experience is only one form of learning.

How can you possibly know those "sons of
> bitches" will works their asses of for that $50 if you hadn't hired
> those "sons of bitches"?

See above.

(P.S. Your cross examination technique sux. Quit watching "Law and Order"
and go sit through some trials at your local court house.)

> > The answer is not 10 divisions on the southern border, but a system that
> > recognizes reality and does not pander to the prejudices of those who
hate
> > anybody not like themselves.
>
> I'm sure that dog-eared race card of yours sits in your shirt pocket for
> quick use as a red herring tool for you, but you're the only person here
> talking about hate.

I know a thing or two about hate, gathered in my years as a Naval Officer,
attorney, and sentient human being. Like the umpire, I calls it like I sees
it.

Bill Kambic

[Michael Wise]

In article >, "Bill Kambic" >
wrote:

> > So you're saying its OK for you disregard or flout any law you
> > like....provided the law is "malum prohibitum"?
>
> Maybe. Rosa Parks was committing a crime when she refused to move to the
> back of the bus.

I guess that means you don't intend on answering the question, but
instead will reach into your shirt pocket and once again pull out your
dog-eared race card?

Since you're now claiming to be a part-time prosecuting attorney, can I
also ask you if its common practice that when you ask or are asked a
question on your job...that you ignore it and simply answer with a
question...and an inappropriate one at that?


> > > I'm not saying it's right,
> >
> > I see. At least you have the balls to admit what you're doing is wrong
> > that you are perfectly content to make your neighbors pay the real costs
> > of your cheap labor.
>
> I said I never hired them; only that I knew where to do so.

You said you knew where do do so, exactly what would be the cost, and
that you know how the worker would perform.

> I also can take
> you to most of the active drug locations in the county. If you want a hit
> man I can probably point you in that direction, too. Not that I would, only
> that I could.


And you could also tell me what this hit man would charge and how
effective he would be at his trade (work ethic, end result, etc.)?




>
> > > I'm pointing out an economic reality that those
> > > who specialize in hatred of those not like them don't ever care to
> > > acknowledge.
> >
> You're the only person mentioning hatred of anybody here. Obviously
> > you're well-versed in defending your wrong (by your own admission) and
> > illegal ways by trying to make it an argument about race.
>
> I have committed no wrong. I only point out this wrong is determined by the
> vagarities of time time and place, not some external code of morality.

Are are most laws which govern our as well as societies around the
world. Does that excuse violating them?

>
> > > Note, also, that I never said I hired any of these guys, only that I
> could
> > > if I wished
> >
> > You said:
> >
> > > Ever try to hire agricultural labor? I have offered as much as $15/hr.
> cash
> > > and had no takers for such tasks as bucking hay, weedeating fencelines,
> > > mucking stalls, etc. I can make a quick trip over to Lenoir City and
> hire a
> > > crew for an 8 hour day at $50/head. And those sons of bitches will work
> > > their butts off for that $50 (where if I hire 'Mericans I will have to
> do
> > > constant "over the shoulder" supervision).
> >
> > How can you possibly know you can get illegal labor for $50/day if you
> > hadn't in fact done so?
>
> How do you know what the speed of light is?


Because it is well documented by credible scientists and has stood the
test of time with physicists the world over.


> Did you personally measure it?

See above.

> Or are you sentient enought to be able to read a book. Or talk to
> neighbors? Or watch CNN?

Sentient enough to read and pass judgement on empiral scientific
evidence accepted by the entire world. Are you tring to suggest that
your commentary on illegal aliens to work your plantation is backed by
similar evidence? If so, you'll not have any difficulty presenting that
evidence right here and now...right?

>
> Personal experience is only one form of learning.
>
> How can you possibly know those "sons of
> > bitches" will works their asses of for that $50 if you hadn't hired
> > those "sons of bitches"?
>
> See above.

See above
>
> (P.S. Your cross examination technique sux. Quit watching "Law and Order"
> and go sit through some trials at your local court house.)


I am not an attorney nor is this a court of law...nor have I even heard
of a show called "Law and Order."

And if my questioning "sux" so much, why do you continue to avoid even
answering the questions? You very specifically said that illegal don't
in TN get the services I several times mentioned...yet when I asked you
what they do when they get sick, hurt, have school-aged kids, etc. and
who pays for it...you ignore the question, delete the question from
quoted text, and then have the audacity to attack the questioner.

Is this sort of lack of intellectual integrity a prerequisite for
part-time prosecutors in your corner of the world...or is it something
just specifc to you?



>
> > > The answer is not 10 divisions on the southern border, but a system that
> > > recognizes reality and does not pander to the prejudices of those who
> hate
> > > anybody not like themselves.
> >
> > I'm sure that dog-eared race card of yours sits in your shirt pocket for
> > quick use as a red herring tool for you, but you're the only person here
> > talking about hate.
>
> I know a thing or two about hate,

Again, race and hate have nothing to do with this...despite your
constant desperate efforts to slam your warn-our race card on the table.
How about answering the questions instead of cowardly hiding behind red
herring arguments?



--Mike

[Bill Kambic]

Michael Wise" wrote in message news:no-

> How about answering the questions instead of cowardly hiding behind red
> herring arguments?

You're right. I am a complete moral coward and intellectually unfit to
joust with the likes of such as your.

I quit. You win.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Michael Wise]

In article >, "Bill Kambic" >
wrote:

> Michael Wise" wrote in message news:no-
>
> > How about answering the questions instead of cowardly hiding behind red
> > herring arguments?
>
> You're right. I am a complete moral coward and intellectually unfit to
> joust with the likes of such as your.
>
> I quit. You win.


Is that you're way of telling us you never intend on telling us who pays
for the city/county/state services used by illegal aliens?


--Mike

[Mike Kanze]

Further posts from Michael Wise => "Plonk."

--
Mike Kanze

"Asking what a pilot thinks about the FAA is like asking a fireplug what it
thinks about dogs."

- from Bill "Windmill" Young


"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Bill Kambic" >
> wrote:
>
> > Michael Wise" wrote in message news:no-
> >
> > > How about answering the questions instead of cowardly hiding behind
red
> > > herring arguments?
> >
> > You're right. I am a complete moral coward and intellectually unfit to
> > joust with the likes of such as your.
> >
> > I quit. You win.
>
>
> Is that you're way of telling us you never intend on telling us who pays
> for the city/county/state services used by illegal aliens?
>
>
> --Mike

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/21/04 11:40 AM, in article
, "Krztalizer"
> wrote:

> Woody, by that rationale, we need to sortie our invasion forces immediately to
> attack Iran and North Korea at a minimum. We know they have WMD, we know
> they'll use them. Ergo, we go to war immediately, without anyone agreeing
> with
> us.
>

I didn't say we know that they *will* use them. I said that we know that
Iraq *has* used them. Saddam Hussein had already opened the Pandora's box
on that one. In addition during the 12 years of OSW, he made many threats
against American pilots, had his pilots fly into the NFZ, had his gunners
and SAM operators shooting at Americans and Brits patrolling the skies over
there (using SAM's and AAA placed south of the 33rd parallel in violation of
the demarkation order post-Gulf War).

Not to mention Ansar Al Islam's presence in northeastern Iraq and their
links to terrorism.

> No matter how frustrating it is to deal with the UN, we either use them as the
> 'oversight committee' for the world, or we take on the role of Big Brother for
> the rest of humanity. Given that we turned out to be wrong in this case, I
> imagine it will only be one or two more such incidents before we have
> sanctions
> placed upon us, for the very reason that we put them on others.
>

Of course, I respectfully disagree. We're the USA not the United Nations of
America. If our interests are threatened and we have probable cause to take
military action, we should take it... I realize that we differ on what
constitutes that probable cause.

> George Bush declared Saddam would be gone. Two presidential cycles later, his
> son took power and completed his father's tasking; WMD was an excuse to give
> his 'change of regime' plan some validity.
>

WMD was only ONE of the offenses in question. The press has picked it up as
the big ticket item because of their propensity to go Woodward and Bernstein
and emphasize controversy in every news story. Next time even your local
media presents a human interest piece look for the ... But... In the middle
of the story where the controversy is revealed.

There's no question really that Saddam HAD WMD and had USED WMD. As I
stated in the previous post the more appropriate questions are where did it
go and when did it go?

> As for the well-known and often mentioned chem attack on the Kurdish village -
> the CIA released information that the chemicals used did not match the
> fingerprint of Iraqi stocks, but did match the gas in Iranian inventory. But
> since that CIA report two, three years ago, it seems to have been forgotten
> and
> Saddam gets the blame. Did he use agents in combat? With surity - but not in
> that case that seems to be ritually used to prove Bush's case against him.
>
> I think if Bush had come right out and said, "This turd needs to get flushed
> but instead of using a flimsy excuse that 80% of the world will not agree
> with,
> I am going to finish the job my dad started," folks would have had less
> trouble
> with his decision to unilaterally invade another country.
>
> v/r
> Gordon

I can empathize, but I think that President Bush did, in effect, say that he
was flushin' the turd. Secretary Powell's pre-war presentation to the UN
made precisely the point that Hussein's conduct as well as the potential
possession of WMD was under fire.

I'm behind the Commander in Chief, the Senate, and the Congress on their
decision to go to war in this case. And as I said before--even if we were
incorrect about WMD, there were numerous other good reasons for invading
Iraq--many of which relate to the reasons that we went into the Balkans
under President Clinton.

Thanks for the discussion. We can agree to disagree, but frankly, I'm
terminating. I'd rather discuss Naval Aviation instead of this OT politics
stuff.

--Woody

[Pechs1]

Bill-<< No, not at all. Yet there are about 10-12 million of them. Or, as
Lenin
once put it, "Quantity is a quality of its own." >><BR><BR>

Sure, but we need to start somewhere. Our orders have become so easy to walk
through, that many 'non-spanish speaking individuals' are coming in. Those use
arab languages as their native tongue.

Bill<< The only reason they are "illegal" is because a statute or regulation
makes
them so. Crossing an artificial line is not a crime "malum in se." IMO
most of the these statutes and regulations are nothing more than an
expression of hostility towards little, brown men who don't speak English.
>><BR><BR>

They are illegal none the less. If you don't like the law, work to change it,
don't ignore it.

As for your racist undertones, that is pure BS.

Bill<< If our southern neighbor were Sweden or Germany and the illegals all
looked
like Anita Ekberg or Ursula Andress (or maybe Rutger Hauer) then I don't
think we would be having this discussion. >><BR><BR>

Try not to put words in my mouth..I dislike Canadians or French or 'put
nationality here' coming into MY country illegally.

If you want to paint this discussion as some sort of profiling statement about
white males, go elsewhere.

Bill-<< Ever try to hire agricultural labor? I have offered as much as $15/hr.
cash
and had no takers for such tasks as bucking hay, weedeating fencelines,
mucking stalls, etc. I can make a quick trip over to Lenoir City and hire a
crew for an 8 hour day at $50/head. And those sons of bitches will work
their butts off for that $50 (where if I hire 'Mericans I will have to do
constant "over the shoulder" supervision). >><BR><BR>

Well, do you turn a blind eye for anybody with a warrant out for them, for say
shoplifting? Pretty minor but he is 'busting his ass for you'. I see that you
are part of the problem, don't care about any solution as long as you get your
hay 'bucked'.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Do you like it when the children of these 'campos' end up in YOUR school
system, not being able to speak english?

To teach them, extraordinary things must be done, that has a HUGE effect on
your legal son's or daugther's education.

Same for a trip to the emergency department, where here in Boulder, about 55%
of those that come there don't speak english and don't intend to pay for these
services. I pay for them, and I don't like it.

Once again, if you don't like the 'law', then work to change it, Don't ignore
it. That is pandering to anybody who is willing to work to save you money, not
some pholosophical arguemant about racism or such.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Bill-<< If you were a Naval Aviator then I would bet that in your career you
made
one or more choices to violate some regulation 'cause in your view at the
time it was a Good Thing to do. >><BR><BR>

Don't speak for me sir. I see that you weren't really in the USN anyway, but
part of the JAG..Where 'interpretation of the law' is an art form.

bill<< I only point out this wrong is determined by the
vagarities of time time and place, not some external code of morality. This
concept clearly escapes you. >><BR><BR>

The consept that seems to escape you, that being undocumented in the US is
illegal. As a part time prosecutor, what other laws do you choose to ignore
because you don't agree with them?

If somebody was being prosecuted for being undocumented , would you remove
yourself from the case?

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

<< You're right. I am a complete moral coward and intellectually unfit to
joust with the likes of such as your. >><BR><BR>

I think the local Bar association needs to have a look at you, since you know
where other felons do their trade(like hit men and drug dealers)but don't want
to get your hands dirty.

But I guess that you see other minor infractions, like possession of grass,
something that deserves to have a blind eye turned towards it, while we are
putting words into each others mouths and ignoring the law.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Krztalizer]

>
>Thanks for the discussion. We can agree to disagree, but frankly, I'm
>terminating. I'd rather discuss Naval Aviation instead of this OT politics
>stuff.

Sounds good to me. Now, back to the hook-skippin' tales of glory :)

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Bill Kambic]

"Pechs1" wrote in message

> Bill-<< If you were a Naval Aviator then I would bet that in your career
you
> made
> one or more choices to violate some regulation 'cause in your view at the
> time it was a Good Thing to do. >><BR><BR>
>
> Don't speak for me sir.

Then don't presume to speak for me on my views on schools, drug usage, or
anything else.

Sauce for gander, don't you know.

But I'll stand by my bet.

I see that you weren't really in the USN anyway, but
> part of the JAG..Where 'interpretation of the law' is an art form.

Well, on this one you are flat, dead wrong. I have written before that I
was VS/VP/VT. I am an Honorary Member of the JAG Corps. (got the plaque to
prove it) and am proud to be so.

>
> bill<< I only point out this wrong is determined by the
> vagarities of time time and place, not some external code of morality.
This
> concept clearly escapes you. >><BR><BR>
>
> The consept that seems to escape you, that being undocumented in the US is
> illegal. As a part time prosecutor, what other laws do you choose to
ignore
> because you don't agree with them?

I follow the letter of the law and the guidelines of the District Attorney
General.

> If somebody was being prosecuted for being undocumented , would you remove
> yourself from the case?

I don't do that sort of work so the question is moot.

Bill Kambic

CDR, USNR (Ret)
VS/VP/VT Active and Reserve

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Pechs1]

Bill-<< Then don't presume to speak for me on my views on schools, drug usage,
or
anything else. >><BR><BR>

I see that you ignore the law to suit your own personal view of it. Not
surprising for an attorney. Many seem to have precious little supply of ethics.




P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer