39 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
very good thoughts.
my other post about illegals it was totally ignored
If it will make you feel any better, I read it and the links also.
I was tempted to respond, but last time you got upset and you told me not to ask you any more questions.
You would have had at least 1 response...but then you couldn't make this new post complaining about lack of responses.
The ones against the law have nothing to say on the subject, (their mind is made up and it's not going to change) and the ones for the law won't shut up about it, (their mind is made up and it's not going to change).
I need to respectfully challenge your observation
in that mine is that those people who are displeased with a new law tend to be the ones who won't shut up. So which group do you hear making the most noise? Given that all we have comes from media accounts of the clamor, I'm not certain our hearing can be accurate.
Which group do "I" hear making the most noise?
From those in favour of the new laws, because this is the place where the subject comes up most often, if not the only place, in my life.
Most of the posts are started by those in favour of the pro-new law. I started 1 thread about the gringo masks.
Ok. So, you're speaking only about Cnet forum commentary
and not the wider news so only a handful of select individuals are represented in your polling and not all who stop here. My observation is based on media activity over this law and others where there always seems to be discontent by some. I find that those who are pleased my make a short celebratory display but those who are displeased won't stop their harping. Media attention is given more to angry mobs than to smiling faces.
Some towns in Massachusetts...
Most notably Boston, have voted to suspend business with Arizona. It's getting a lot of coverage here. Lots of noisy demonstrators against the law, misrepresenting what it says.
Seems to me if you're going to be against a law so vehemently, you should READ the thing before making claims about it which are obviously false.
RE: you should READ the thing
I'm interesting in knowing how you can tell if someone has read something.
Just because a person has a different opinion on something (whether read or not) does NOT mean they haven't read it.
Former leftist Joe Hicks
the governor of Arizona speaks
Our president does show poor communications skills here
While we don't get to hear the entirety of the presidents address or speech, the "adios amigos" is certainly tactless. I'd be hoping one of his own advisers would point out how divisive such a comment can be. I'm sure he'd not go to the AZ capitol grounds and dare make such a statement. Consistency of message is not one of his stronger suits, IMO. He needs to work on that.
Minnesota wants a similar law. Whether they're afraid of
the streams of Manitobans and Saskatchewanites flooding over the borders (or not as the case really is) hasn't been made clear.
Holder hasn't read Ariz. law he criticized
This is not surprising...
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.
Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.
It is obvious that most of of the critics of the law have not read it, or else they would not be making the claims about it they have been. But this guy is the Attorney General of the US!!!! I really think (again) that he is not fit for the office.
In the same hearing...
James, link it or lose it
thanks.....he hasn't aged at all
The recent Major Cook lawsuit contains evidence proving that Obama has listed he lived at 149 different addresses and has used 39 different social security numbers!
?The evidence contained in exhibit B shows that Barrak Hussein Obama might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 Social Security Numbers prior to assuming office as president. The Social Security number most commonly used by Barrak Hussein Obama is one issued by the state of Connecticut, the state where Barrak Hussein Obama never resided and shows him to be 119 years old.
why stop at 39? why not one for all 57 States?
Thought along that line...
This is not about Obama, but that brought to mind something that recently happened to me. It bears on something else that has been discussed at the Forum.
My father is deceased. I ran across his Social Security Number, and as an experiment, I Googled it. Immediately, I ended up at the Social Security site, which indicated that he was deceased.
So here's the thought:
In past discussions, illegals and others using SS numbers of others on employment applications was mentioned, as well as employers checking the validity of those numbers. AIR, I myself mentioned the government's reaction if an invalid SS number was submitted on the required employee tax information. Some of those bogus numbers submitted would be the numbers of deceased persons.
So, wouldn't it be as easy for an employer to Google the SS numbers of new potential hires as it was for the case that I mentioned? I would think that that would weed out some bogus numbers easily, and without waiting for the Government to notice it on the submitted paperwork, and reply back to the employer. One person could check and weed out some numbers in just a minute or so, instead of waiting who knows how long for the government to catch them. Just a thought.
that would be too easy:(
RE: wouldn't it be as easy for an employer to Google
wouldn't it be as easy for an employer to Google the SS numbers
Would you want Your SSN available on Google?
I tried Google "check ssn" and it took me Here...a bunch of links to someone that wants to sell me something
You ended up at the Social Security Death Index...People that have died since 1962...
Why not let Employers have access/internet access to valid SSNs...never mind Google.
let Employers have access to valid SSN
i think/hope not....
imagine how many employers (knowingly) employ illegals...
you really want them to have access to that information?
They would Not have access to valid ssn.
have access to be able to check IF a number is valid. They do have valid SSN's now when a person fills out employment forms for taxes.
Someone comes in for a job, gives a number, employer checks the number...Government says....Valid or not?
It's not too difficult to make up a SSnumber..There is method...
Although SSNs are issued in some order, there is no simple way to tell a person's age based on his Social Security number.
Googled my SSN and got similar results
One says it found 4 instances and wants $19.95 to validate that it's attached to my name. Now I have to wonder who the other three people might be. Think I just heard pounding on my front door.....
I tried again...
I tried it again with my father's number, as it's been a couple of months. This time, I also got just commercial sites.
No problem, I was building a notebook of info about my father for his grandson, and when I got the link to the info I mentioned I printed it out for the notebook.
Things change on the net, it would seem.
I believe when
SS finds a number being active again, they take it back off the public access status. Perhaps however an older database still accessible before Obama started using the number would reveal if it was actually someone else's in the past?
Seem that, according to this article, most Americans
favor the law and are not pleased with our president's handling of illegals here.
Personally, I'm disturbed more by the active boycotting of the state by other states, cities, and even schools. If an individual wants to do so or band together with other persons, that's fine with me. But, for some state or city to summarily call for a boycott and include all of its citizens whether they agree or not with the decision is divisive and just plain wrong, IMO.
Boycotts by other states = political pandering
They are refusing to do state or city business with AZ....
In Massachusetts many citizens find Boston's actions ridiculous and some towns are rejecting it entirely. Silly liberals.
can you tell me...
...what the last function Boston govt had in Phoenix? Have they ever had ANY function in Phoenix?
apparently they do about $7 million a year worth of business.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)