• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Purge

crazyfingers said:
Ford said:
KCFlyer said:

I've argued with a guy on another board. He bitches about illegals. But he had a patio installed and went with a low bid. He "didn't find out until later" that the workers were illegal. I asked if he reported the business owner. Of course he didn't.
Click to expand...

Here in Arizona, we had the infamous "Papers Please" law (SB1070) that had an employer sanctions provision. So did a previous law, since it was politically expedient to throw a bone to folks who thought employers were also breaking the law.

Wanna know how many business owners were fined under the laws? One. It was some small business in the middle of nowhere that got a slap-on-the-wrist fine. That was it. They never tried to enforce the provisions otherwise.
Click to expand...

Here in MA I had to prove that I'm legally employable each time the company that I worked for got acquired. My daughter in the last few years has had to prove it 3 times at least. Easily done. A passport is easiest.

I have no idea how enforced the law is.
Click to expand...
Yes, you need to prove you're employable. But it's possible to do so with documents containing no anti-counterfeit provisions.

(And the US passport is easiest if you don't run into someone who can't comprehend you don't actually need two documents. My passport I actually use, my social security card I certainly haven't used since the 80s and I'm not sure I used it even then. Of course I can lay my hands on my passport faster.)
 
Loren Pechtel said:
crazyfingers said:
Ford said:
KCFlyer said:

I've argued with a guy on another board. He bitches about illegals. But he had a patio installed and went with a low bid. He "didn't find out until later" that the workers were illegal. I asked if he reported the business owner. Of course he didn't.
Click to expand...

Here in Arizona, we had the infamous "Papers Please" law (SB1070) that had an employer sanctions provision. So did a previous law, since it was politically expedient to throw a bone to folks who thought employers were also breaking the law.

Wanna know how many business owners were fined under the laws? One. It was some small business in the middle of nowhere that got a slap-on-the-wrist fine. That was it. They never tried to enforce the provisions otherwise.
Click to expand...

Here in MA I had to prove that I'm legally employable each time the company that I worked for got acquired. My daughter in the last few years has had to prove it 3 times at least. Easily done. A passport is easiest.

I have no idea how enforced the law is.
Click to expand...
Yes, you need to prove you're employable. But it's possible to do so with documents containing no anti-counterfeit provisions.

(And the US passport is easiest if you don't run into someone who can't comprehend you don't actually need two documents. My passport I actually use, my social security card I certainly haven't used since the 80s and I'm not sure I used it even then. Of course I can lay my hands on my passport faster.)
Click to expand...
I can't remember the last time I saw my social security card. I might be here at my house or it could be at my parent's house or it could be just lost. I sure have not needed the physical card for decades. If I ever needed to prove it I'd pull out an old W2. But I don't think I've had to prove it for decades either.
 
crazyfingers said:
Loren Pechtel said:
crazyfingers said:
Ford said:
KCFlyer said:

I've argued with a guy on another board. He bitches about illegals. But he had a patio installed and went with a low bid. He "didn't find out until later" that the workers were illegal. I asked if he reported the business owner. Of course he didn't.
Click to expand...

Here in Arizona, we had the infamous "Papers Please" law (SB1070) that had an employer sanctions provision. So did a previous law, since it was politically expedient to throw a bone to folks who thought employers were also breaking the law.

Wanna know how many business owners were fined under the laws? One. It was some small business in the middle of nowhere that got a slap-on-the-wrist fine. That was it. They never tried to enforce the provisions otherwise.
Click to expand...

Here in MA I had to prove that I'm legally employable each time the company that I worked for got acquired. My daughter in the last few years has had to prove it 3 times at least. Easily done. A passport is easiest.

I have no idea how enforced the law is.
Click to expand...
Yes, you need to prove you're employable. But it's possible to do so with documents containing no anti-counterfeit provisions.

(And the US passport is easiest if you don't run into someone who can't comprehend you don't actually need two documents. My passport I actually use, my social security card I certainly haven't used since the 80s and I'm not sure I used it even then. Of course I can lay my hands on my passport faster.)
Click to expand...
I can't remember the last time I saw my social security card. I might be here at my house or it could be at my parent's house or it could be just lost. I sure have not needed the physical card for decades. If I ever needed to prove it I'd pull out an old W2. But I don't think I've had to prove it for decades either.
Click to expand...
I have a W2, and get a 1040 every year, but I don't have a social security number, and am not eligible to work in the US. I own US shares that pay taxable dividends, but have never been a US resident, much less a citizen. The IRS deduct taxes from my dividends, and the ATO refunds them under some reciprocal tax treaty or other - but the tax years don't line up, and the exchange rate fluctuates, so it gets very complicated.

I leave it up to my accountant.
 
bilby said:
I have a W2, and get a 1040 every year, but I don't have a social security number, and am not eligible to work in the US. I own US shares that pay taxable dividends, but have never been a US resident, much less a citizen.
Click to expand...
You should not receive a W2 unless you receive taxable wages. For dividends they would send a 1099-DIV.
 
The most objectionable part of that is they reference him (and only him) as his intelligence as a leader and how he used the Hitler youth to instill patriotism (also known as nationalistic Nazism). It is presented as an example to reach towards, without a trace of second thought. And as far as I can tell, this isn't from a book in the reading list... IT IS THE READING LIST! It is very disturbing!
 
GenesisNemesis said:
www.timesfreepress.com

Tennessee Republican women’s group cites Hitler in promoting its reading list | Chattanooga Times Free Press

The Tennessee Federation of Republican Women is coming under fire for providing parents a reading list for children that cites Adolf Hitler as an example of leadership.
www.timesfreepress.com www.timesfreepress.com

But it's unfair to call them Nazis. 🙄
Click to expand...

Just to put this more in the context of the thread, they are citing Hitler as an example of instilling patriotism, but clearly he wasn't patriotic to his country as he was all for purges, arresting citizens who disagreed with his ideology, not merely based upon race and other things. Overlooking these major flaws seems common in their analysis of Hitler but also in how they view Trump. They overlook the same things and call him a unifier, believe it or not. In these ways, Trump is a little Hitler or a Litler.
 
I couldn't believe this Hitler citation but, looking at the article, it seems to have happened. (I still hope it's a hoax of some sort.) If it's real...just how brain-dead do you have to be, to put this in print? How many sets of eyes looked at it and thought it made sense and created no problems? How many brains processed that fatal sentence and didn't foresee the outrage and ridicule that would fall on their group?
The main reason I had trouble believing it is that Hitler is usually cited by the Christian apologists as an example of the evil that non-believing humans perpetrate, although Hitler of course never renounced his Catholicism, made certain rapprochements with the church, and invoked God in his speeches to the nation. For a bunch of conservative Repub women to not know any of this really tells you how narrow and ingrown their intellectual awareness has become. Yeesh!!
 
ideologyhunter said:
The main reason I had trouble believing it is that Hitler is usually cited by the Christian apologists as an example of the evil that non-believing humans perpetrate
Click to expand...
Well, they're not the most logically consistent bunch, and they worship the OT god. Not a kind and loving god.
 
ideologyhunter said:
How many sets of eyes looked at it and thought it made sense and created no problems? How many brains processed that fatal sentence and didn't foresee the outrage and ridicule that would fall on their group?
Click to expand...
I believe they knew, and didn’t give a fuck. And that’s part of the appeal. Pwning the libs. Get them riled up then point at them and laugh.
 
Why confirm anyone? He's ruling with an iron fist.

More to the point, what is the purpose of the firings? It's another signal, this time to people just doing their assigned jobs that their assigned jobs better not go against Trump. This keeps everyone in line.

And if you don't care about your career, you must at least care about your life....because he unleashed all those seditious terrorists on society...
 

Trump's Justice Department launches sweeping cuts targeting Jan. 6 prosecutors, FBI agents​

...A group representing FBI agents issued a rare public warning of the potential for hundreds of firings at the nation's top law enforcement agency...
Click to expand...

It started out being about merely prosecutors and now it has extended to anyone working anything in the case, potentially hundreds of agents.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:

Trump's Justice Department launches sweeping cuts targeting Jan. 6 prosecutors, FBI agents​

...A group representing FBI agents issued a rare public warning of the potential for hundreds of firings at the nation's top law enforcement agency...
Click to expand...

It started out being about merely prosecutors and now it has extended to anyone working anything in the case, potentially hundreds of agents.
Click to expand...
And virtually all of those agents don’t choose the cases they work on. They just do their jobs.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:

Trump's Justice Department launches sweeping cuts targeting Jan. 6 prosecutors, FBI agents​

...A group representing FBI agents issued a rare public warning of the potential for hundreds of firings at the nation's top law enforcement agency...
Click to expand...

It started out being about merely prosecutors and now it has extended to anyone working anything in the case, potentially hundreds of agents.
Click to expand...
I can see the class action lawsuits start flying.
 
www.yahoo.com

Musk’s Lackeys Seize Control of Social Security Check System

Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency team have reportedly gained full access to the federal payment system, which contains sensitive personal information on millions of Americans, according to a report. Access to the system—which is used to distribute Social Security checks, tax...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

The purging of the poors begins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom