The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-10-2013, 02:46 PM   #76
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
700,000 on average were being lost. How many are we adding now on average a month? Do the math
No source, too vague. Try again. How is this all Bush's fault? Those job levels are dropping or stagnant at best, not rising. Obama is in year #5. Will you wait to year 8 to take a bit of blame?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 02:47 PM   #77
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Fact: We have low-wage workers. They're called blue-collar Americans. Greedy pigs would rather subvert federal law and hire people who are vulnerable and less likely to fight back against exploitation so they prefer illegal aliens. It's not that hard to figure out. I saw it more than once years ago when I worked unskilled labor myself. The "need" crap is propaganda either from corporate fat cats or illegal alien lobbying groups (probably funded by Mexico City). It's also no secret that the presence of these laborers lower the wages of unskilled labor in general. Supply and demand. Oversupply of cheap labor lowers wages, period.

I don't belong to the GOP btw, I'm not registered with any party.

From the Clinton Administration's Jordan Commission --

Wow really? so every year farmers don't need a certain number of workers to pick their crops? Interesting.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 03:01 PM   #78
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
Wow really? so every year farmers don't need a certain number of workers to pick their crops? Interesting.
And here is a display of your wanton ignorance for all.

You see child, when Reagan stupidly signed the 1986 amnesty, part of that bill included a package for agricultural visas for farm labor called the H-2A Agricultural Visa. Indeed, very few illegal aliens work farms, and the farms that hire illegal labor do so to avoid the minimum labor and wage standards in the H-2A legislation. Illegals go for the blue collar jobs; janitors, fast food, hotels, meatpacking, landscaping, construction. Stuff Americans historically have done.

We don't have farms that require 12 million laborers, dude.

And you know what the H-2B visa is for? Importing cheapo foreign tech and non-agricultural workers who will work for less than Americans. Do we "need" them too? No - they are "needed" by those who wish to make a killing on saving labor costs.

Last edited by nyuk nyuk; 05-10-2013 at 03:49 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 04:05 PM   #79
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,186

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
oops..

The Benghazi "Whistleblower" Cover-Up That Wasn't
Leading up to yesterday's House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi, the conservative media worked diligently to drive home the idea that the "whistleblowers" who testified had been silenced and were unable to make their voices heard to Congress or other investigative authorities. Much of that narrative was driven by Republican attorney Victoria Toensing, who portrayed her own struggles with bureaucratic red tape as evidence of an administration cover-up. Fox News' Special Report cited Toensing on April 29 in reporting on allegations that "the Obama administration is trying to intimidate potential whistleblowers into silence."

But the testimony of Gregory Hicks, one of the three witnesses at yesterday's hearing, put lie to the notion that the administration was suppressing his voice and opinion. Hicks, we learned, had already spoken with Congressional investigators in Libya. And he had been interviewed -- twice -- as part of the State Department's independent internal investigation. That, combined with the fact that other Benghazi survivors and witnesses have spoken to the FBI, the State Department, and Congress, dismantles the idea that the administration worked to keep Hicks or his cohorts from being heard.

Hicks caused a brief stir yesterday when he testified to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that he had been told by the State Department "not to allow the [regional security officer], the acting deputy chief of mission, and myself to be personally interviewed" by Rep. Jason Chaffetz when the Utah Republican led a Congressional delegation to Libya to investigate the Benghazi attacks. Some conservatives misinterpreted Hicks' testimony to mean that Hicks had been ordered not to speak to Chaffetz, period. Hicks, however, later clarified his remarks when questioned by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-NY), explaining that he had been told not to speak to Chaffetz without a State Department attorney present.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05...t-wasnt/193984
And he got demoted. It's obvious you don't read any posts or didn't watch any of the testimony. Your sorry attempt of a point but has already been debunked in this thread. Do yourself and us all a favor and do some research before attempting a gotcha Post.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 04:38 PM   #80
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 11,979

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Again, I asked for other attacks under similar circumstances which would warrant such an investigation, and you'd provided zilch.

I already asked if there were other attacks in which help was called for and support was told to stand down. You have nothing. Nada.
Anytime an Embassy is attacked, it's an attack upon sovereign soil.

If terrorists are repeatedly hitting US embassies....sometimes 2 or 3 times attacking the same embassy.

That, IMHO, should be grounds for an investigation into protection, intelligence and response.

Don't agree? Couldn't care less.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 04:47 PM   #81
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 11,979

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
I agree with your point for the most point. However, if you research most of these attacks they were for the most part stopped outside of the target.

The problem is that this incident is completely different than the others. There are levels of ****edupedness. The many attacks prior to to 9-11, the denial of additional security, the non action during the attacks, the changing of the talking points and then the blaming a video, the ordering of State Department personnel not to talk to the investigators.
Many were stopped short, others were fatal. I find it curious that only the Benghazi attack is considered worthy of a Congregational investigation.

It stinks of politics at a time when divisive partisan politics are polarizing the country.
The investigation is warranted in light of the whistle-blowing, but I'm tired of the partisanship at a time when we need, amongst other things, a balanced budget......and I mean 'balanced.'

DC has become a cesspool and they really don't care how glaringly obvious it has become.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 04:52 PM   #82
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,186

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Anytime an Embassy is attacked, it's an attack upon sovereign soil.

If terrorists are repeatedly hitting US embassies....sometimes 2 or 3 times attacking the same embassy.

That, IMHO, should be grounds for an investigation into protection, intelligence and response.

Don't agree? Couldn't care less.
So you don't think investigations were held? I'm pretty sure it's protocol for an investigation after an attack. That's how we improve our defenses. Root cause analysis, lessons learned, intelligence shortfalls etc.

The problem here is the lies and misinformation started right out of the gate. There may be some partisan motivation here by some but there is zero doubt that this deserves a thorough investigation because of all the misinformation and other shortfalls i've pointed out a few posts ago.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 04:59 PM   #83
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,186

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Many were stopped short, others were fatal. I find it curious that only the Benghazi attack is considered worthy of a Congregational investigation.

It stinks of politics at a time when divisive partisan politics are polarizing the country.
The investigation is warranted in light of the whistle-blowing, but I'm tired of the partisanship at a time when we need, amongst other things, a balanced budget......and I mean 'balanced.'

DC has become a cesspool and they really don't care how glaringly obvious it has become.
I agree with everything you said. Especially in bold.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 05:07 PM   #84
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 11,979

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
So you don't think investigations were held? I'm pretty sure it's protocol for an investigation after an attack. That's how we improve our defenses. Root cause analysis, lessons learned, intelligence shortfalls etc.

The problem here is the lies and misinformation started right out of the gate. There may be some partisan motivation here by some but there is zero doubt that this deserves a thorough investigation because of all the misinformation and other shortfalls i've pointed out a few posts ago.
I'm sure they were, just as they were in the case of Benghazi.

But, IMO, it shouldn't just take a whistle-blower when the sheer number of attacks warrant at least the same attention as Benghazi.

As I mentioned, the partisan politics being played in DC are the main reason we are seeing this air out at a Congressional level in a circus atmosphere.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 05:09 PM   #85
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,186

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
oops..

The Benghazi "Whistleblower" Cover-Up That Wasn't
Leading up to yesterday's House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi, the conservative media worked diligently to drive home the idea that the "whistleblowers" who testified had been silenced and were unable to make their voices heard to Congress or other investigative authorities. Much of that narrative was driven by Republican attorney Victoria Toensing, who portrayed her own struggles with bureaucratic red tape as evidence of an administration cover-up. Fox News' Special Report cited Toensing on April 29 in reporting on allegations that "the Obama administration is trying to intimidate potential whistleblowers into silence."

But the testimony of Gregory Hicks, one of the three witnesses at yesterday's hearing, put lie to the notion that the administration was suppressing his voice and opinion. Hicks, we learned, had already spoken with Congressional investigators in Libya. And he had been interviewed -- twice -- as part of the State Department's independent internal investigation. That, combined with the fact that other Benghazi survivors and witnesses have spoken to the FBI, the State Department, and Congress, dismantles the idea that the administration worked to keep Hicks or his cohorts from being heard.

Hicks caused a brief stir yesterday when he testified to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that he had been told by the State Department "not to allow the [regional security officer], the acting deputy chief of mission, and myself to be personally interviewed" by Rep. Jason Chaffetz when the Utah Republican led a Congressional delegation to Libya to investigate the Benghazi attacks. Some conservatives misinterpreted Hicks' testimony to mean that Hicks had been ordered not to speak to Chaffetz, period. Hicks, however, later clarified his remarks when questioned by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-NY), explaining that he had been told not to speak to Chaffetz without a State Department attorney present.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05...t-wasnt/193984
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 05:09 PM   #86
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Anytime an Embassy is attacked, it's an attack upon sovereign soil.

If terrorists are repeatedly hitting US embassies....sometimes 2 or 3 times attacking the same embassy.

That, IMHO, should be grounds for an investigation into protection, intelligence and response.

Don't agree? Couldn't care less.
Yes, that's lovely, and meaningless. How do you know it never happened? You're making all these statements with nothing behind them and getting mad at me that there's nothing behind them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 05:12 PM   #87
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 11,979

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Yes, that's lovely, and meaningless. How do you know it never happened? You're making all these statements with nothing behind them and getting mad at me that there's nothing behind them.
Can you remember or find a Congregational investigation into any of those attacks?

Nor can I.

The rest of your post....wtf??
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Denver Broncos