KanchanaburiGuy

A union's "strict enforcement of job duties" is sometimes exactly why companies hire outside contractors. When hiring outside contractors, the expectation is to hire professionals who will behave professionally. Making sure the contractor is following health and safety regulations and hiring legal workers............. is the CONTRACTOR'S job, NOT the hiring company's! That, after all, is what they're getting paid for! You hire professionals so you don't have to watch over every detail and supervise every action. That's exactly why you hire them!

If the Brits got fired, it suggests they did something to deserve it. If the EU workers did the same things, they ALSO deserved to get fired. If the EU workers did not get fired for something that justified firing........ that's not a "right" or a "benefit." That's just horrendously bad policy. This would be an example of EU laws doing harm, not good. No one should get to keep a job that they deserve to lose.

Just curious........ Is this a complaint that some people got fired while others did not......... .......or......... ...........is it a complaint that some people didn't get fired, when they should have been? See, if the EU is preventing people who deserve to get fired from getting fired........... I can't consider that a good thing.

Somehow I doubt the long traffic delays at Dover............ took any longer than it would take to read through the 813 posts and 28 pages in this thread! Hmmm? Lol

A lot if times, it has nothing to do with what the employer wants. It ISN'T that they don't want to pay the union workers union wages to do the menial jobs. It is frequently prohibited by the union itself, in the contract. In my whopping 21 days as a teamster in the "Bottlers Union" working at Anhueser Busch in Van Nuys, California............ I worked in Quality Control. One night, I finished up all the work I had been assigned roughly a hour and a half before the end of my shift. I figured, no problem! I'll pick up a broom or something! But oh, no, no, no! If I, as a Quality Control "bottler," did clean-up work.......... then the guy whose job it was to clean floors......... might lose his job! Indeed, one night I got read the "riot act" because I picked up a case of 24 bottles and brought it into the lab to QC! "Oh no! No, no, no! You can't do that!" As a QC worker, I was not ALLOWED to carry a full case! If I needed cases brought into the lab, I needed to contact a supervisor, and the supervisor would assign a "bottler" to carry the cases in. This could take a couple of hours, though. So, what WAS I allowed to carry, so our productivity wasnt completely tanked? I was allowed to take one bottle or can out of the case, carry in the 23 bottles or cans remaining, then go back outside and get the one more! Because it was a BOTTLER'S job to carry full cases, not Quality Control's job! And if QC starts doing a Bottler's job.......... the company might decide to get rid of some "Bottlers!" Believe me, none of this came from THE COMPANY! This was all THE UNION! The point is........ A lot of times, the company gets THE BLAME............. but the company is not THE PROBLEM!

To be clear, I'm not arguing against "heavy-handed and narrowly-focused enforcement schemes" (my words)........AT ALL! Not with regard to employers, and not with regard to Illegal Workers. Indeed, if you read the paragraph that immediately precedes the one where you found my quote........... that should be readily apparent. What I HAVE tried to argue is that just because people keep ignoring the real-life problems of Cause & Effect and Unintended Consequences that will inevitably result from their short, pithy, black & white "answers"........... it doesn't mean those things are not real; that some people will not wind up being SEVERELY and perhaps TRAGICALLY affected by them! And not just the workers themselves, but their families, too!

Lol You say........... "Away with you and your eagerness to assign to me arguments I have mot [sic] made." (Which, of course, I didn't do) But then, you close your post with.......... "You are late to the party with your newly found concern for immigrants"........ ...........when you have absolutely no idea how long I've had "concern for immigrants." None whatsoever! Fact is, I'm 64 years old, and before January of this year when I first logged in to AseanNow........... you had no idea I even existed! Personally, I try hard not to play the "Do as I say, not as I do" game, that you have demostrated so successfully here. Now.......... what do they call that, again? Hippocratic? Hypnotic? Hippopotamus? Oh that's right, it's.............

This being something I simply have not done. I merely responded to what you DID say........... and pointed out there are consequences that flow from your stated position; consequences that you seem to be either completely oblivious to............. or completely unconcerned by.

Well now.......... A lot of those illegal workers came to America because of the cruel and inhumane situations that already exist in their home countries. And a lot of them work like dogs to scrape together a few dollars here and a few dollars there........... so they can send a little money home with the hope of keeping their families from becoming completely destitute! So............ While you're thinking about saving these workers---these people---from being ravaged by unfair and predatory employers............ .............are you also giving any thought to the possibility that by taking away their jobs......... we may also be taking away the only thing that is keeping the worker.s........and their families.......... out of abject poverty and destitution? As I asked in my first post in this thread............. Does your compassion have a Nationality? Does your sense of compassion stop at the border? Because a lot of those "Illegal Workers" aren't coming here for the life they can build HERE. They are doing it to try to save their families THERE!

There's an old business adage that comes to mind here........... "When a business starts to pay for things........... they go out of business." What that means, of course, is that businesses get all the money they use to pay for things from their customers. If they start having to use their own money to pay for things, it means they are losing money! Now there are lots of situational exceptions to this, I agree. But it is nonetheless generally true. So, I must ask.......... Aren't the "fines & penalties" you're talking about a lot like Trump's Chinese Tariffs? Isn't it the CONSUMER that winds up paying for all of that........... not the country/business that you're supposedly trying to punish? Now I totally agree that if we're going to take all this seriously, there needs to be a serious crackdown on employers who hire Illegal Aliens and Undocumented Workers. But you seem to be gleefully ignoring the significant and impactful Cause and Effect consequences that inevitably come from doing this. And I see no attempt to consider what Unintended Consequences may result from using such heavy-handed and narrowly-focused enforcement schemes.

That would be a great argument if there were not so many examples of nations with older demographics, and very much more generous social welfare programs funding their social welfare commitments without vast numbers of undocumented immigrant It would be helpful if you could name at least couple of those "so many examples," so we might consider what OTHER factors might explain their "success?" For example, do they basically have a closed society, like Japan? (No "immigrant problem" because no immigrants! kinda/sorta.) Are they oil-rich like Denmark? Have they agreed as a society to carry 30 - 50% more tax burden than Americans have, so they can have these things? Do they have minimal military and self-defense expensitures freeing up tons of cash.......... because they have strong neighbors who have invested in expensive militaries that can protect them, if necessary (like Canada)? Now, you may be right. But it seems to me there could be many reasons for their "success" that have nothing to do with documented or undocumented workers. Illegal Immigration may never have been a problem for them, so they've never had to adapt to that reality. So, would you be willing to name a few of these "so many examples" you're talking about?

I think if a person or family truly needs asylum............ the first priority has to be to get them out and away from the thing that is threatening them. Couldn't processing asylum requests in a person's home country kind of create a Catch-22 situation? "If you're safe enough to stay in your home country while we investigate and process your asylum request.......... then you don't really need to go to the United States for asylum, do you?" Nah, if we're going to be serious about providing asylum, we always need to be sure we are prioritizing protection over paperwork. Of course, how we HANDLE asylum-seekers after they arrive, that........... THAT.......... can stand some major, major, MAJOR improvements! This "Scoot along now, it's okay. But y'all come back when we call, now, hear?" approach.......... leaves a whole lot to be desired!

For decades, illegal immigration has been a serious political issue. Republicans talk about it; Democrats talk about it. There are laws being broken and laws being ignored. Businesses make profits they are not supposed to, and then don't pay the correct taxes on their profits and their payroll. Job seekers who follow the law.......... get aced-out of jobs by cheaper workers who are willing to break the law. Meanwhile, when Republicans have control of Congress and/or the Presidency, nothing gets done. When Democrats have control of Congress and/or the Presidency, nothing gets done. (Probably the biggest thing attempted in the last 50 years was the Reagan-era(?) amnesty program for illegals who were already here. But that wasn't a solution; that was capitulation! And that, besides being a horrible failure, sent the future a terrible message: "Go ahead and break in. We'll forgive you!" [Remember: "If you reward bad behavior, you're destined to get more of it!"] And thus, here we are!) But why is all that? Why do Republicans talk about it and then do nothing? Why do Democrats talk about it, and then do nothing? Why is it that once they get elected, the only thing they seem to totally agree on......... is to NOT do anything meaningful to stem the tide of illegal immigration........... and to NOT do anything meaningful to expel the illegal aliens that are already here? Why is that? Well, turns out there IS a reason. Turns out there's a "Dirty Little Secret" kind of reason, but it's a reason, nonetheless! Consider this: Remember when Social Security was being called the "Third-Rail of American Politics?" When it was believed that anyone who talked about reforming, changing, and/or cutting-back on Social Security........... guaranteed they'd be ousted at the ballot box, or become a pariah in Congress if they did get elected? Remember that? To the best of my recollection, that thinking started in earnest in the 70s............ and has been one of the "Golden Rules of Politics" ever since! So............. What does Social Security have to do with the almost universal lack-of-effort toward creating meaningful Illegal-Immigrant/Illegal-Alien policies by both parties? Why does neither party seem interested in creating real "Kick-'em-Out and Keep-'em-Out" policies, despite all their talk about favoring them? The answer is: Social Security! Social Security? Really? How can that be? Well, I guess everybody knows by now that Social Security was set up as a Ponzi Scheme: It only works when there is an expanding population contributing it. Except, beginning in the 60s and 70s, people.stopped having 3 and 4 and 5 kids. We suddenly found ourselves facing near ZPG conditions [ZPG = Zero Population Growth!] Yes, the population has kept expanding. But that's mostly because people stopped dying when they were expected to! And that ultimately ADDS to the burden that Social Security is under.......... rather than helping to alleviate it! So again, what does this have to do with Illegal Immigration and Congress? Well, the answer to that is the "Dirty Little Secret" that politicians will never talk about! It's this....... Illegal Immigrants provide the "expanded population" that Social Security absolutely requires. The "expanded worker population" that our American birth-rate has failed to keep up with! Remember: "Social Security---The Third-Rail of American Politics!" What they won't say is.......... what's too risky to say is....... If the government effectively shuts down the flow of people crossing the border............. and/or sufficiently expels the Illegal Alien population that is already here........ it will spell the death of Social Security as we know it! (Try keeping this in mind as you ask yourself, "Why was the only serious attempt in the last 50 years merely an AMNESTY.......... keeping the people here!......... rather than actually attempting EXPULSION?" And........ "Why would the only serious attempt in the last 50 years..........also be the one thing that would almost guarantee an increase in the number of people who try to come here? Hmmm?) -------------------- Truly meaningful and effective Immigration Reform......... =means= ..........Grabbing "The Third-Rail of American Politics" with both hands! ----------------- (Now, a lot of people will respond, "Illegal Aliens".......... or "Undocumented Workers," if you prefer........ don't pay into Social Security. But the fact is, the majority probably do............ either through the front door or the back door. What's more, being Illegal........ even though they've paid INTO the system............ they will likely never be able to take anything OUT of it! This our cynical, cover-their-own-butts government would call a "win-win!") Bottom Line: Immigration......... whether legal or illegal......... solves a big part of the "expanding population" problem that is inherent in the Social Security Ponzi Scheme. It solves a problem that our American birth-rate has been incapable of solving since the 60s or 70s. If screwing up Social Security........... or even having serious conversations about changing it........ can be a virtual death-sentence to a national politician............ why would they do anything to hinder this easy, automatic solution ..............a solution made possible by simply doing nothing? Answer is........... they wouldn't! And that's why Democrats and Republicans alike........... talk up a good game.......... but when the rubber hits the road, they wind up doing nothing!

Man, I must say, reading through this thread from the beginning......... has been enough to make me dizzy! With all due respect to all who have contributed, I don't know that I've ever seen a thread with so many poorly thought-out positions and viewpoints! Seriously, if I had responded to each post where I found myself saying, "Wait, wait, wait! It's not that simple!" I'd've probably tacked on 15 or 20 consecutive posts to the thread! [I'll assume y'all are saying "Thank you for NOT doing that!" and move on!] -------------- Now, because it's impractical to address ALL the complex issues that are in desperate need of clarification here, let me give just a few broad brushstrokes to consider....... ----> If we deported all the "illegals" in the United States......... supposedly about 11 million of them........... it would collapse the U.S. economy, and maybe take the rest of the world with it. (Like the real estate crisis of 2007 did, in 2008 & 2009) Just imagine: 3 to 4 million housing units suddenly being vacated. No mortgage payments being made; no rents being paid. Millions of additional vacancies now competing for buyers and renters, driving down both prices and values. Just imagine stores and restaurants suddenly having 11 million fewer customers to sell to. Just imagine the cutbacks in employees and services at schools and hospitals---hospitals closing and schools closing---because there would be a lot fewer people who need what they do. Just imagine how many layoffs of "Americans" would occur on the production side of things.......... because there are 11 million fewer people around to buy the level of goods they are already geared up to produce. (Imagine.......... 11 million people eating 25 million meals per day! If you're a farmer, a rancher, a meat packer, a canner, a trucker, a packager, et cetera, you may find yourself in deep doo doo! And that's just FOOD!) And on and on............ -----> Then we have to ask ourselves some very, VERY serious questions about compassion! Are we compassionate people....... or tough-minded, cold-hearted people? But before you jump to your automatic ego-boosting "Of course we are compassionate!"......... ask yourself......... Does your compassion have a Nationality? Are you prepared to make decisions "to protect your own".......... (meaning Americans, of course!)........... even while knowing that turning away those people who came here to build a better life for themselves....... (either here or in their home country!).......... might be forced to return to horrendous, dangerous, and/or desperate situations? I mean, is it really compassion........ if your compassion only extends to "your own".......... instead of being extended to those who are the most in need......... even if they happen to be the "wrong" Nationality? Can we really call ourselves compassionate people.......... if our compassion stops at the border? "Sorry, you're from the wrong side of the border, so no compassion for you!" Of course, laws are laws, and laws are important. But haven't we gotten smarter over time and learned that if laws KEEP people in a desperate situation.......... (violence, starvation, poor education, oppression, et cetera)....... or force them to RETURN to a desperate situation......... that maybe those laws need some serious reexamining? -----> And then of course there's MONEY. Personally, I find it useful to think of money as being....... One Big Ol' Stack of Cash! Want to do this over here? Take some off your stack of money. Want to do that over there? Take some off your stack of money. Why do I find this helpful? Because if you keep taking more and more off the stack.......... eventually that stack disappears! So, if you suddenly start thinking of all kinds of NEW things that take money........... you're gonna have to figure out what you're NOT going to spend money on.......... because there's only ONE stack of money! Want to raise the minimum wage? That takes money. Want to give illegal aliens healthcare? That takes money. Want to fine companies for hiring illegal aliens? That takes money (from the company or individual to pay, and for government to enforce). Want to stop more people from crossing the border? That takes money. Need to process asylum seekers? That takes money. Need attorneys and judges to process deportations? That takes money. Need to detain and deport illegal aliens? That takes money. Need to round up and transport 11 million illegal aliens from all over the country? That takes money! And where does all this NEW money come from? Well, we can print it. But printing it devalues it. So that winds up being a false gain. We add a small amount on top of the stack, but we devalue the whole stack in the process! Or we could borrow it. But that too is a false gain. That just makes today's problem tomorrow's problem........... without ever actually SOLVING the problem! Or........... we can confiscate it. We can tax our citizens and our businesses. But since our businesses get all their money from their customers.......... it ALL......... ultimately......... winds up on the citizens! -------------- -------------- -------------- What I've presented here is just the tip of the iceberg. The simple fact is, there are myriad complexities involved in the "illegal immigration/illegal alien" question. There are exactly ZERO short, pithy answers that are worth a damn! Because for every one or two things your short, pithy answers seem to address........ there are twenty incredibly important things that are simply being overlooked or ignored! When someone glibly says, "Just send 'em all back!" They never seem to bother questioning what we'd be sending them back to! They never bother questioning where the money to round them up is supposed to come from. They never consider how many landlords lose their properties because all their income-producing tennants got deported. They never consider the cascade effect that comes from creating a hole in the economy. And on and on. . . With all due respect, if all you've got are short, pithy answers........ well, sorry....... you're not really even in the conversation!

Well now, as is beautifully expressed in the American Declaration of Independence, Governments should be formed to reflect and serve the will and desires of the Governed. So, if the Governed desire a Government that takes direction from the tenets of a particular religion........... it is their absolute Right to have that kind of Government, whether WE think that's a good idea, or not! It's called Sovereignty! Take Islamic countries, for example. In Islam, the word of Allah (and his prophet Muhammad) are the HIGHEST word. Therefore, any form or aspect of government that contradicts the will of Allah......... is automatically heretical! So the idea that you can talk about Islamic governments as being separate and distinct from the Islamic religion........... is foolhardy. In most Islamic countries, the goverment is subservient to the religion, not separate from it. And.......... nearly all indicators suggest........ this also reflects the will of the people! The government takes its lead from the religion, and that's how the people like it! So your suggestion that government "should not be" taking direction or guidance from religion......... reflects only ONE of the ways things work in the world. There are literally dozens of Countries where the exact opposite is true. And in those countries, that framework remains very much the prefered mode of government for the Governed! Lastly, you may note that the First Amendment of the American Constitution clearly states the Government must remain hands-off concerning religion. But it doesn't say word one about religion having to remain hands-off concerning Governance! Religion is entitled to influence Government just as much as people are willing tolerate............ and just as long as the government doesn't morph into becoming part of the religion! So, what you're saying may be what you consider ideal.......... but, in practical terms......... it actually holds very little standing in the real world.

Ah, since you began your post with a strawman, I simply decided to ignore the rest. Sure hope you eventually got around to saying something worth reading. Too bad you chased me off before I could get to it, huh? Now, if you'd like to respond to the things I ACTUALLY said............ instead of the things you've [wrongly] imagined I meant........... we might be able to have an intelligent conversation. Whaddya think?

And I dismantled it with BETTER "medical professional" information, also with a link. Allowing voluntary abortions out to 24 weeks is unconscionable. 24 weeks is when a fetus is considered realistically, reliably viable........ not a defining point up to which voluntary abortions should be allowed.

While Roe v Wade was in force, that was true. Now that Roe v Wade has been overturned, it is not true. Individual sovereign States in the United States making their own abortion laws........... is exactly the same individual European Countries making their own abortion laws. The only difference.......... as we saw with Roe v Wade........... is the Federal Judiciary has the ability to declare a law unconstitutional, thereby negating the laws from the individual States. Now, the Federal Government CAN pass a law making abortion legal nationwide; a law that overrides the individual State laws. But remember, such laws do not occur in vaccuum! Those laws are created by elected State representatives in the House and Senate! Sorry, but with Roe v Wade having been overturned, individual sovereign States.......... operate just like individual Countries........... as far as abortion laws are concerned.

The first sentence is woefully untrue. At 24 weeks, the survival rate of a delivered fetus is just under 70%. At 24 weeks, we're well beyond the moral line that separates "aborting a fetus" and "killing a baby." Here is a link to a good site that shows survival rates at different levels of gestation......... https://healthcare.utah.edu/womenshealth/pregnancy-birth/preterm-birth/when-is-it-safe-to-deliver.php#:~:text=About 40 percent of these,between 60 and 70 percent. --------------- I think: Killing a fetus at an early enough stage of development that it cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances.......... is morally acceptable. With our current state of technology, that point maxxes out at 18 to 19 weeks. (Therefore, allowing an additional moral buffer between the points of alright and all wrong, I'm morally okay with First Trimester.) But, killing a child at 24 weeks when it has roughly a 70% chance of survival if "delivered" instead of being "aborted?"............. This is morally UNacceptable. (Suddenly, words like "unconscionable" and "horrendous" start coming into play!) --------------- Medically, we know there is a break point where survival is possible........... and survival is impossible. What we cannot say is exactly when that break point is, for any one individual. What we can say though is......... At 20 weeks, survival is possible but still extremely unlikely. And we can say that at under 24 weeks, survival rate of delivered children is less than 50% (see the link provided.) At 18-weeks, survival rate = zero. At 20-weeks, survival rate = not zero! Medicine and science cannot tell us what is moral and immoral. That's not their area of expertise; not their focus. But medicine and science CAN put up some fences that help us see; that can help us decide where the boundaries should be. At 24 weeks, barring developmental issues already noted by others, a baby should be delivered, not "aborted." The nearly 70% survival rate of babies born at that stage of development demands that! (Some may say a 5% survival rate is enough. Some may say 10% or 20% or 30% Obviously, this being a MORAL question, opinions are going to differ. ) I say: A woman should have a choice. But if a woman hasn't chosen by the end of the First Trimester.......... then she HAS chosen! A woman should not have the right to kill a child that could very well survive outside the womb............ just because she procrastinated! -------------- Yes, she should have a choice. But we should also enforce the idea that not choosing............ IS choosing! Allowing a choice to be made as late as 20 weeks.......... gets into very murky waters! Because at 20 weeks, survival IS possible. 24 weeks? Not acceptable! No sorry, not by a long shot!

Well, since "bomb" is a synonym for "failure".............. ("the movie was a bomb")............ all it needed to be able to do......... was detect itself! ------------- Box said "Bomb Detector" on the outside. With each box they opened, they found a "bomb!" Where's the fraud? Lol

Here is the important sentence in this quote.......... in cases where the pregnancy could cause injury to the woman/girl. In the first place, EVERY pregnancy "could" cause injury to a pregnant woman or girl. Every one! So the word "could" is obviously not how they're going to interpret the law, because the law would then be unable to limit anything!......... "Patient could develop blood clots as a result of being pregnant." "Patient could develop diabetes as a result of being pregnant." "Patient could experience antibody toxicity as a result of being pregnant." "Patient could develop chronic back problems as a result of being pregnant." And so forth...... . No, they are going to require a doctor identify some kind of clearly identifiable, immediate threat to the woman or girl. And, as far as we know, no such threat existed with this 10-year old. She was just 10-years old......... and pregnant. That's it! Now, I read an article that made it pretty clear that a 10-year old is at high risk for quite a number of maladies. It made it clear that even though her body was mature enough to release an egg, fertilize it, and implant it in her uterine wall.......... that doesn't mean it is mature enough in the many other ways it needs to be............ to carry a baby to "full term" safely. Simply put, there are at least a dozen other kinds of "maturation" necessary to allow a mother to carry a baby to term, that a 10-year old's body is unlikely to be ready for. But these are questions of RISK. We have no idea how many of those RISKS actually apply to THIS individual! She may, in fact, be fully physically equipped.......... even at 10-years old......... to carry a baby to term! We don't know! But! We know it is a possibility.......... because we know it has happened! So........... I think the Ohio AG is once again running fast and loose with the truth, here. Yes, it is technically correct that this girl could have received an abortion in Ohio......... IF.......... it could be shown she was in immediate danger. But we've seen no evidence (so far) that she WAS in immediate danger! And it's pretty apparent that in Ohio, just being 10-years old.......... would not be enough.......... to allow a "legal" abortion to go forward! Yes, without a doubt, this is an age where the risks are exponentially greater. But until there was an actual threat to her life or well-being........... given the nature of the law and the penalties associated............a doctor would have to be crazy to take the chance! No, either the Ohio AG is playing fast and loose with that word "could"........... knowing full well that she couldn't! Or............. His words are opening the door for ANY woman or girl in Ohio who wants an abortion to get one............ because EVERY PREGNANCY "could" lead to serious harm or death! Trust me........ the law means there must be an IMMEDIATE threat to the mother........... not, like the AG says, that there "could be" one! And we have no evidence there was any kind of IMMEDIATE threat to this 10-year old!* ----------------- * (Indeed, the biggest threat to her overall......... was probably being in that house while she WAS pregnant! Because her molester would then be absolutely certain she COULDN'T get pregnant [because she already was!] That might have been a big ol' green light to him, to step up the frequency of his abuse!)

Drats! Our little 14 room hotel is probably too small to use for money laundering! No point in pursuing it, I guess! I mean, even with the most creative of number juggling, no one would ever believe this property would produce anything more than 5 or 6 million baht per year. And that would mean effectively [pretending to] triple our current rates......... (500-600 baht per night becomes 1,500-1,800 baht per night)......... and 100% occupancy, all the time! Of course, if we're just pretending for the sake of laundering the money......... well........! But only 5-6 million baht laundered per year? Small potatoes! On the other hand........... takin' a cut and not having to clean a bunch of rooms every day? Hmmm. What was that phone number, again????? Lol

Saying I wouldn't go so far as to "condemn"......... still leaves a helluva lot of room for believing he was in the wrong. (Man, I wish English was your native language!)

Clue: The topic of the thread is the man accused of commiting the rape being arrested and charged. But you don't seem to know that. NOTHING you've said about Jordan, Biden, Swalwell, et al., has had ANYTHING to do with the topic! I jumped in for one reason only: Because I believe it is importont to correct lies, so others don't inadvertently learn from them. I believe: Learning truth is worlds better! Some, though, choose to defend lies, rather than correct them......... Ho hum!

And yet, just a few posts upthread I very clearly said he was in the wrong. But I guess you conveniently missed that. "Condemnation" of miscellaneous people who will never in a million years see my words.......... really isn't part of my repertoire. Condemnation of questionable people HERE, though........... sure! Lol Like when they seems to wish so badly that Two wrongs would make a right!....... lol