Twenty Things You Should Know About Corporate Crime

[freesw]

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

Two things.

1. Lot's of fishermen have gone broke....not just where that oilspill was.

That is totally lame. You really are an apologist for corporate criminals, aren't you.
How would you like it if someone dumped several tons of sludge around your house, so that you could not go to work, and refused to pay to clean it up and compensate for the damage?

Exxon committed a massive crime and got away with it.

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

2. You need to blame the court.

I blame folks like you, who voted for the Republican presidents who put such injustices on the court.

[2dumb2kwit]

Originally Posted by freesw

That is totally lame. You really are an apologist for corporate criminals, aren't you.
How would you like it if someone dumped several tons of sludge around your house, so that you could not go to work, and refused to pay to clean it up and compensate for the damage?

Exxon committed a massive crime and got away with it.



I blame folks like you, who voted for the Republican presidents who put such injustices on the court.

First, show me that these fisherman would have been ok, had it not been for the spill.
Second, show me who appointed the judges that cut the pay-off, and there reasons for cutting it.

[2dumb2kwit]

You know, Free....I bet if you try really hard, you can figure out a way to blame this on Sarah Palin! LOL

[2dumb2kwit]

Just for the record, I do think Exxon needs to pay for all real damages.

I hold the courts responsible for seeing to it that they do.

[freesw]

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

First, show me that these fisherman would have been ok, had it not been for the spill.

I'm amazed at you.

If you were hit by a drunk driver and seriously injured, that's like the lawyer for the drunk driver telling you the drunk driver owes you nothing. "Prove someone else wouldn't have hit you that night," and "prove you wouldn't have lost your job anyway."

Seriously, what is the matter with your brain today?

[freesw]

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

Just for the record, I do think Exxon needs to pay for all real damages.

I hold the courts responsible for seeing to it that they do.

Those are Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans, who almost always side with corporations. When you vote Republican, unless you live someplace like Maine, you're voting for injustice, for corporate oligarchy, and ultimately, an American form of fascism. The trend, if it were continued, would as surely end there as all nearby matter falls into a black hole. Fortunately we do still have elections in this country, and in 2008 we got a reprieve. Things are still horribly wrong, but we have a bit more time to regroup.

[2dumb2kwit]

Originally Posted by freesw

I'm amazed at you.

If you were hit by a drunk driver and seriously injured, that's like the lawyer for the drunk driver telling you the drunk driver owes you nothing. "Prove someone else wouldn't have hit you that night," and "prove you wouldn't have lost your job anyway."

Seriously, what is the matter with your brain today?

No...it's like saying, yes, the drunk driver hurt you such that you can no longer work. He should pay for pain and suffering, and for the loss of income.
The problem is, you want one million per year, as lost income, yet you've never made more than 25K a year, in your life.

[freesw]

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

You know, Free....I bet if you try really hard, you can figure out a way to blame this on Sarah Palin! LOL

September 9, 2008
Sarah Palin's record on environment is abysmal
...

Exxon Valdez oil spill damages. Palin refuses to push Exxon to pay the government for the unanticipated environmental injuries from the disastrous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Almost 20 years later, the private case is still unresolved and the governments likewise have yet to collect full payment from Exxon. Shortly before Palin took office in 2006, the governments presented Exxon with a demand to pay $92 million for this additional environmental damage, but her administration has since not pressed the issue nor taken Exxon to court to collect the money. Meanwhile, Exxon reaps record profits from Alaska.
...

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/377...inenvir07.html

[2dumb2kwit]

Originally Posted by freesw

Those are Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans, who almost always side with corporations. When you vote Republican, unless you live someplace like Maine, you're voting for injustice, for corporate oligarchy, and ultimately, an American form of fascism. The trend, if it were continued, would as surely end there as all nearby matter falls into a black hole. Fortunately we do still have elections in this country, and in 2008 we got a reprieve. Things are still horribly wrong, but we have a bit more time to regroup.

I dis agree with this. They may not do as you wish, but I think they do as most of us wish. It's the lib judges that really screw things up.

BTW, are you saying that the supreme court cut the pay-off to these people?

[freesw]

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

No...it's like saying, yes, the drunk driver hurt you such that you can no longer work. He should pay for pain and suffering, and for the loss of income.
The problem is, you want one million per year, as lost income, yet you've never made more than 25K a year, in your life.

You don't know that, you're just speculating.

[2dumb2kwit]

unanticipated environmental injuries

That sounds a lot like "We made up some other shlt we want you to give us money for". I wonder why she didn't go after that.

Don't forget...she stood up to exxon, on that pipeline deal. Doesn't really sound like she's in their pocket, now does it?

[2dumb2kwit]

Originally Posted by freesw

You don't know that, you're just speculating.

Aren't you, also?

[freesw]

This is just another example of socialism for the rich, raw capitalism for everyone else. But that really isn't capitalism at all, it is fascism, corporatism. Another way of describing it is corporate feudalism, or corporate despotism. Far from a real free market, it makes a mockery of our nation's founding principles.

When all goes right, Exxon reaps massive profits. But when something goes wrong? The cost is foisted off onto the public.

...
According to a study out Feb. 15 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey and Alaskan agencies found that oil levels in the sands around the sound are much the same as they were when tests were done five years ago. The study says oil has seeped down 4 to 10 inches.

The oil is a continuing, "far-ranging" problem for fish and wildlife, says Kim Trust, science director of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, an Alaska-federal partnership that works to repair the environmental damage. A 2006 council report found that two species — Pacific herring and pigeon guillemots — are not recovering. Populations of clams and mussels are still affected by the lingering oil, as are sea otters and birds such as harlequin ducks and black oystercatchers.

The new report states that subsurface oil poses a contact hazard for foraging otters, ducks and shorebirds, creates a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourages subsistence and "degrades the wilderness character" of protected lands.

Exxon spokesman Mark Boudreaux said in an e-mail, "There have been nearly 350 conference presentations or publications in peer-reviewed journals. Based on that body of scientific evidence, it is clear that there have been no effects on the environment that remain ecologically significant."

Seventeen years ago, scientists predicted that the oil would be long gone by now. "We expected the natural decay rate was 25% a year. But very little of the oil actually disappeared," says Jeffrey Short, a NOAA research chemist. "What's left is going to be there a long time."

Instead, the researchers estimate, the oil is "weathering" away at a rate of 3% to 4% a year. "It will be readily detectable for decades," Short says.

Jennifer Culbertson, a marine ecologist at Boston University, is among the surprised. "The theory has been that on a rocky shore, it's not going to stay for that long, that waves will wash it away," she says.

Says Michael Baffrey of the Trustee Council: "We made a lot of assumptions about what would happen to the oil. A lot of those didn't play out."

As many as half a million birds were killed in the spill, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation says, including more than 150 bald eagles. As many as 4,500 sea otters died, the National Marine Fisheries Service says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...n-alaska_x.htm

[2dumb2kwit]

"There have been nearly 350 conference presentations or publications in peer-reviewed journals. Based on that body of scientific evidence, it is clear that there have been no effects on the environment that remain ecologically significant."

Yet you are going with the few eco-warriors, that say differently.

What happened to believing peer-reviewed experts?

[freesw]

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

Yet you are going with the few eco-warriors, that say differently.

What happened to believing peer-reviewed experts?

Guess you missed that that's the Exxon spokesman email. The claim that "there have been no effects on the environment that remain ecologically significant" is so manifestly untrue that it stood out like a sore thumb in that article, didn't it.

ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2007) — Some 18 years after the Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, the oil continues to cause environmental problems along some of Alaska's shoreline. To help determine why the oil continues to linger long after experts predicted it would disappear, Temple University has been awarded a three-year, $1.2 million grant by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.

"Every indication tells us that the oil should have biodegraded," says Michel Boufadel, chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Temple's College of Engineering and the principal investigator for the grant. "But what we've seen is there are still plenty of places where the oil still exists."

According to a recent study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey and Alaskan agencies found that oil levels in the sands around the sound are much the same as they were when tests were done five years ago. The study says oil has seeped down 4 to 10 inches.

During the next two summers, Boufadel and graduate students will travel to Prince William Sound for 20 days and 50 days, respectively, to conduct field studies, take samples and try to get an understanding of the motion of the water and effects of the waves along the beaches.

"Our goal is to understand what is happening at the oil-water interface, since that is where the biodegradation of oil typically occurs," said Boufadel, an expert in oil spill remediation. "We will be examining the biodegradation from both sides of that interface -- from inside and outside the oil patches." Boufadel said the researchers currently believe that micro-organisms, which would typically consume the oil, may play a key role in the oil's lack of biodegradation along the beaches.

"You would expect that over 17 to 18 years, the micro-organisms that live in water along the beach would eat the oil; that they would consume it completely," Boufadel said. "That did happen at many locations, but at these particular locations that we will be examining, there have been some limitations on that occurring."

Boufadel hypothesizes that the micro-organisms, which live in the water and need other nutrients to be able to consume the oil, may not be getting enough nitrogen, phosphorus or oxygen in order to do that. Or, he adds, a layer or sort of "skin" may have developed around the oil patches, making them impenetrable by the micro-organisms.

Boufadel also believes that environmental factors such as temperature could be inhibiting the micro-orgamisms. "There may be enough nutrients, but the temperature may be so low that these micro-organisms cannot grow fast enough to consume the oil that lingers on these particular beaches," he said.

As part of the Prince William Sound study, the research team will be using a numerical model developed by Boufadel to account simultaneously for all the factors causing the lack of biodegradation.

In addition to Boufadel and the Temple environmental engineering students, Chiang He, assistant professor of Environmental Engineering at Temple, and researchers from Washington University in St. Louis, NOAA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also will be involved in the project.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council is a partnership between the State of Alaska and the Federal Government to oversee the restoration of the ecosystem of Prince William Sound that resulted from the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321093410.htm

The oil industry is still completely unprepared:

ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2009) — Two decades after the Exxon Valdez oil spill devastated a vast stretch of the Alaskan coast, governments and industry in the Arctic would be unable to effectively manage a large oil spill, according to a new report by World Wildlife Fund.

As the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez spill approaches on March 24, WWF renewed its call for a time-out on new offshore oil development in the Arctic until technologies improve to ensure adequate clean-up of an oil spill. WWF is also calling on the Obama Administration to permanently protect Alaska's fish-rich Bristol Bay from drilling.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska was one of the world's worst ecological disasters. A WWF report released March 19 demonstrates how the Arctic remains ill-prepared should another spill occur. The report, "Lessons Not Learned," finds that while practices have improved in Prince William Sound, oil spill response capabilities throughout Arctic region have improved little in the past 20 years.

To mark the Exxon Valdez anniversary, WWF will showcase rocks collected from Prince William Sound beaches that are still coated in oil. Additionally, the House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday examining the future of offshore oil development in U.S. waters.

"While new regulations are in place regarding response to oil spill disasters in the last 20 years, the Arctic itself has changed considerably and is much more vulnerable today," said Bill Eichbaum, WWF's vice president for marine and arctic policy. "Sea ice is disappearing and open water seasons are lasting longer, creating a frenzy to stake claims on the Arctic's rich resources – especially oil and gas development. Oil spills can be devastating to Arctic marine environments given the current lack of oil spill response capabilities. We need a 'time-out' until protections are in place for this fragile, extraordinary place."

WWF, which has the world's largest Arctic conservation program, also recommends that the most vulnerable and important areas of the Arctic be deemed permanently off-limits to oil and gas development. Such "no-go zones" should be based on the sensitivity and productivity of special priority areas, where oil spill response would be virtually impossible to clean up or where any spill would cause irreparable long-term damage. These areas include Bristol Bay in the southeastern Bering Sea in Alaska, known as "America's fish basket," where more than 40 percent of all wild seafood is caught in the United States. Oil and gas development in the bay is estimated to bring in $7.7 billion over the 25-40 year lifetime experts predict it would take to extract the resources. By comparison, the renewable fisheries of the Bristol Bay region are valued at $50-$80 billion over that same time period.

"Fishermen's livelihoods are at stake," said Keith Colburn, a Bristol Bay crab fisherman featured on Discovery Channel's Deadliest Catch. "Loss of the Bristol Bay fisheries would put thousands of fishermen out of work and break down the engine of a fishery that brings in $2.2 billion to the economy each year. It's not worth the risk."

WWF is urging Arctic countries to conduct comprehensive risk assessments of industrial activities, such as shipping and petroleum development, along with climate change-induced impacts on the marine environment. In addition, Arctic countries should also adopt a region-wide comprehensive agreement for spill response and launch conservation plans that assess the health, biodiversity and functioning of Arctic ecosystems.

"The Exxon Valdez spill has been the best-studied oil spill in history and scientists have found that even 20 years later, the damage from the spill continues," said Margaret Williams, managing director of WWF's Alaska program. "Fishermen's livelihoods were destroyed, many wildlife and fish populations still haven't recovered and the Alaskan economy lost billions of dollars. We can't let that happen again in Alaska's productive waters."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0319102309.htm

[2dumb2kwit]

Originally Posted by freesw

Guess you missed that that's the Exxon spokesman email. The claim that "there have been no effects on the environment that remain ecologically significant" is so manifestly untrue that it stood out like a sore thumb in that article, didn't it.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321093410.htm

The oil industry is still completely unprepared:


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0319102309.htm

Yes, I saw who's email it was, but I don't care if it was Santa Clauses email. It doesn't matter who brought it up....what matters is

"There have been nearly 350 conference presentations or publications in peer-reviewed journals. Based on that body of scientific evidence, it is clear that there have been no effects on the environment that remain ecologically significant."

[freesw]

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

Yes, I saw who's email it was, but I don't care if it was Santa Clauses email. It doesn't matter who brought it up....what matters is

... according to that Exxon spokesman. He is lying.

Odd, how ready you are to believe a corporate spokesman, while refusing to acknowledge what is right there in the ground in Alaska.

[Dirty Harry]

The division that is coming in the divided states of america will soon eliminate the worry free market capitalism for the down trodden angry left

Problem for them is, they get to keep their trillions in debt.

[Dirty Harry]

Originally Posted by freesw

... according to that Exxon spokesman. He is lying.

Who will pay for all the greedy illegal mexicans if corporate america says bye bye?

[2dumb2kwit]

ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2007) — Some 18 years after the Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, the oil continues to cause environmental problems along some of Alaska's shoreline. To help determine why the oil continues to linger long after experts predicted it would disappear, Temple University has been awarded a three-year, $1.2 million grant by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.

"Every indication tells us that the oil should have biodegraded," says Michel Boufadel, chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Temple's College of Engineering and the principal investigator for the grant. "But what we've seen is there are still plenty of places where the oil still exists."

According to a recent study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey and Alaskan agencies found that oil levels in the sands around the sound are much the same as they were when tests were done five years ago. The study says oil has seeped down 4 to 10 inches.

During the next two summers, Boufadel and graduate students will travel to Prince William Sound for 20 days and 50 days, respectively, to conduct field studies, take samples and try to get an understanding of the motion of the water and effects of the waves along the beaches.

"Our goal is to understand what is happening at the oil-water interface, since that is where the biodegradation of oil typically occurs," said Boufadel, an expert in oil spill remediation. "We will be examining the biodegradation from both sides of that interface -- from inside and outside the oil patches." Boufadel said the researchers currently believe that micro-organisms, which would typically consume the oil, may play a key role in the oil's lack of biodegradation along the beaches.

"You would expect that over 17 to 18 years, the micro-organisms that live in water along the beach would eat the oil; that they would consume it completely," Boufadel said. "That did happen at many locations, but at these particular locations that we will be examining, there have been some limitations on that occurring."

Boufadel hypothesizes that the micro-organisms, which live in the water and need other nutrients to be able to consume the oil, may not be getting enough nitrogen, phosphorus or oxygen in order to do that. Or, he adds, a layer or sort of "skin" may have developed around the oil patches, making them impenetrable by the micro-organisms.

Boufadel also believes that environmental factors such as temperature could be inhibiting the micro-orgamisms. "There may be enough nutrients, but the temperature may be so low that these micro-organisms cannot grow fast enough to consume the oil that lingers on these particular beaches," he said.

As part of the Prince William Sound study, the research team will be using a numerical model developed by Boufadel to account simultaneously for all the factors causing the lack of biodegradation.

In addition to Boufadel and the Temple environmental engineering students, Chiang He, assistant professor of Environmental Engineering at Temple, and researchers from Washington University in St. Louis, NOAA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also will be involved in the project.

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council is a partnership between the State of Alaska and the Federal Government to oversee the restoration of the ecosystem of Prince William Sound that resulted from the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

Hmmmm....this sounds to me like, 20 years later, the egghead experts are admitting that they didn't know what the heck they were talking about.

Anyone else see a theme here?

[freesw]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Who will pay for all the greedy illegal mexicans if corporate america says bye bye?

If your civil war fantasy comes true that will be among the least of your worries, child.

[2dumb2kwit]

Originally Posted by freesw

... according to that Exxon spokesman. He is lying.

So you say. I remember seeing reports that showed things looking great.

[freesw]

Originally Posted by 2dumb2kwit

So you say. I remember seeing reports that showed things looking great.

Exxon produced tons of PR material in the years since the Valdez spill. Obviously things are not great. Didn't you even read the article you just quoted?

[Dirty Harry]

Originally Posted by freesw

If your civil war fantasy comes true that will be among the least of your worries, child.

And just think, it will all happen thanks to the pure greed and foolish ideology of your liberal government.


The corporations and working Americans are all tapped out.

[freesw]

18 years on, Exxon Valdez oil still pours into Alaskan waters

· Study concludes threat to ecology could last decades
· Tanker's owner dismisses report as insignificant

Crude oil is still polluting Alaskan waters almost 18 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, according to a study by US government scientists to be published in two weeks.

The study, an advance of which was released on Wednesday, found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska.

The disclosure came as Exxon Mobil posted the largest annual profit by a US company, $39.5bn (£20bn) yesterday.

Predictions that the pollution would have disappeared by now have proved to be inaccurate, and the damaged ecosystem is struggling to recover. The lingering oil, lying below the surface, affects wildlife and the general environment, and "degrades the wilderness character" of protected lands, the report says.

The study, by experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is to be published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal.

The scientists conclude: "Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shore birds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy, and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands."

The oil spill in 1989, the worst single incident of pollution in US history, covered 1,200 miles of pristine shoreline.

The slow rate of dispersal means the oil could persist for decades more below the surface near some beaches.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil said yesterday the company would review the findings. "Based on our initial review of the report, there is nothing newsworthy or significant in the report that has not already been addressed," he said. "The existence of some small amounts of residual oil in Prince William Sound on about two-tenths of 1% of the shore of the sound is not a surprise, is not disputed and was fully anticipated."

Mr Boudreaux said Exxon has supported more than 350 independent studies whose scientists have found no evidence of significant long-term impact.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2.../oil.pollution

[freesw]

Bioavailable Contaminants Come From Exxon Valdez Oil Catastrophe; Natural Coal Deposits Not Source Of Environmental Pollution, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Sep. 1, 2009) — Contaminants from natural coal deposits in the Gulf of Alaska are not easily bioavailable, unlike the crude oil from the Exxon Valdez tanker catastrophe, according to a new study. The findings challenge the theory that natural coal deposits were the cause of observed environmental damage.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) pollutants were blamed for the continuing degradation of the ecosystem off the coast of Alaska. Then a scientific dispute erupted over the origins of these pollutants. According to an international team of researchers writing in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, the crude oil from the Exxon Valdez was the main source of the bioavailable PAH contaminants.

The scientists from Tennessee Technological University, the University of Lausanne, Calvin College and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) compared PAHs in samples of tanker oil and from coal deposits. Their investigation with bacterial biosensors has now shown that only the PAHs from the tanker oil had any effect on organisms.

The scientists were able to prove this in the lab with the help of genetically engineered bacteria which react with the contaminants. “These biosensors are based on bacteria which feed on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. If these bacteria come into contact with these substances, it flips a biological switch and the bacteria start to glow,” explains Prof. Hauke Harms from the UFZ. “There are clear advantages to this new forensic application: there is no need to take the indirect route of costly chemical analysis to prove results.”

As the bacteria used give off a great deal of light, the scientists are able to study the processes at a high resolution – down to a microscopic level in individual organisms.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a natural component of coal and petroleum. Because of their longevity and toxicity, sixteen of these substances were classed as particularly hazardous environmental pollutants as far back as the 1980s by the American environmental agency EPA. Adhesives containing coal tar were thus prohibited, as a health hazard. Some PAHs are unambiguously carcinogenic – as long as they are metabolised by the organism. Their bioavailability thus determines their toxicity. They are generally only bioavailable if the substances are water-soluble.

When the Exxon Valdez spilled its load on a reef in March 1989, about 40,000 tonnes of crude oil escaped and polluted the Prince William Sound. It is estimated that of seabirds alone, more than a quarter of a million were killed in the spill. Two thousand kilometres of coast were polluted with oil, bringing an end to fishing, and thus the livelihoods of many people living on the coast. According to ExxonMobil, the owner of the tanker, in a statement on the 20th anniversary of the spill, the company has paid out more than 3.8 billion dollars in compensation, clearance work, out-of-court agreements and fines.

Despite a large-scale clean-up, there are still lingering effects on the environment. An estimated 80,000 litres of oil in the form of lumps of oil and tar are still said to pollute the coast of Alaska. The consequences are now no longer evident. But they cause, however, that marine organisms are damaged and the food chain no longer work as before. The main problem is that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the oil only decompose slowly due to the low Arctic temperatures.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0831130709.htm

[freesw]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

And just think, it will all happen thanks to the pure greed and foolish ideology of your liberal government.

You're mistaken about this as so much else. E Plurbus Unum, for better or worse. The border's just north of you if you just can't stand the United States of America any longer.

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

The corporations and working Americans are all tapped out.

Working Americans, yes, corporations, no.

[reverendg]

Originally Posted by freesw

... according to that Exxon spokesman. He is lying.

Odd, how ready you are to believe a corporate spokesman, while refusing to acknowledge what is right there in the ground in Alaska.

Apparently only corporations and republicans lie....libs are lily white bastions of truth!!! And of course, any time a conclusion is disagreeable to Free, it MUST be a lie. Tell it to your shrink.

[Dirty Harry]

Originally Posted by freesw

You're mistaken about this as so much else. E Plurbus Unum, for better or worse. The border's just north of you if you just can't stand the United States of America any longer.



Working Americans, yes, corporations, no.

Who do you think makes up the corps?

[freesw]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Who will pay for all the greedy illegal mexicans if corporate america says bye bye?

I've met quite a few "illegal" Mexicans, and "greedy" is not a word that describes any of them. I continue to be amazed at your obsession with picking on such generally inoffensive people. They're anything but greedy, just trying to get by, and working very hard to do it.

What is the matter with you? It's like this resentment of yours, or hatred, I don't know what, it possesses you.