Saturday News and Open Thread

Thanks to all of you who contributed to our birthday fundraising. I'll be sending individual thank-you emails over the next few days. I'm really excited to be able to get a new laptop, and am headed out now to shop for one.

In the news, here's the transcript of Obama's full speech on immigration policy:

Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people. Over the next few months eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.


We have always drawn strength from being a nation of immigrants as well as a nation of laws, and that’s gonna continue. And my hope is that Congress recognizes that and get -- gets behind this effort.


This announcement is especially fitting today, the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Plyler v. Doe. In Plyler, the Court held that all children in America are entitled to a basic public education, regardless of immigration status. The DREAMers are Plyler’s legacy—students who have worked hard to achieve their educational and career goals and become contributing members of society.

In other news, the jurors in the Rajat Gupta case explain why they found him guilty of conspiracy and securities fraud.

And the ACLU releases a report showing the U.S. could save $16 billion a year by releasing elderly non-violent prisoners. It costs states an average of $66,000 a year to incarcerate each one. "Elderly" is considered any inmate over the age of 50.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< The Conservative Embrace Of Judicial Activism | Justice Ginsburg: Turbulent Times at Supreme Court >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Are really advocating deportation (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    of people whose parents brought them to the U.S. as dependent minors?  That is really harsh in my view.

    I think s/he is. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:22:36 PM EST
    Immigration issues have a way of separating (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:54:25 PM EST
    The wheat from the baloney.  My left mind?? Hardly.

    Thank you for pointing out (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sj on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 03:10:25 AM EST
    who made the deleted comment.  With that information, I have a pretty good idea of what was said.

    Not that I would have been interested in reading it...


    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:52:42 PM EST
    If you say something meaningful I'll discuss with (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:47:39 PM EST
    you, but you're just making false arguments with nothing to back them up.

    Our economy depends on immigrants, both illegal and legal, whether or not you want to believe it.  My preference is to make them legal if they follow certain rules - and what Obama said is they will have to earn their citizenship.  Give me something other than the old standby reasons for rejection.  

    P.S.  Do you realize that George Bush was for this same type of amnesty when he was governor of Texas?

    I dont understand the last part (none / 0) (#16)
    by nyjets on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:57:11 PM EST
    I never liked Bush junior. I never voted for him

    I am neither a Republican or Democrat. I vote for people whose views I agree with.


    I never liked Bush either, but this is one issue (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:55:30 PM EST
    on which he and I agreed.  My point is that some of us who live in states with high immigrant populations understand the value many of these immigrants give to our economy as well as our culture. I think our country would be a better place for all if these immigrants could come out of hiding and live freely.    

    regardless of (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:57:49 PM EST
    what political party you belong to, you may not post those views here. You aren't seeking a discussion, you are promoting an agenda that is unacceptable here.

    That is not true (none / 0) (#29)
    by nyjets on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:23:15 PM EST
    I am only discussing that issue. But I will be careful.

    I am not comfortable, will never be (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    with tossing someone who has lived in the United States their whole memorable life experience learning life into a country they neither know, understand, or have any developed support system in.  I sure hope someone would never do it to me or my children either.

    How do propose the U.S. (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:03:51 PM EST
    deport those who are here w/o documentation?  In my state the 2010 census reveals 37% of the population claims Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Of course many are US citizens or green card holders.

    Also, car washes, fast food, lawn care, hotel services, cooks, farm labor, child care are almost entirely jobs of this ethnic group here. Others could do it but don't.

    request (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:03:33 PM EST
    when responding to a comment that is objectionable, please don't repeat the objectionable part. Respond to the person who wrote it. In case I delete the comment, as I just did with NYJets comment, it will still be on the site if commenters reprint it.

    People can debate whether they agree with Obama's announcement, but to slam the children of the undocumented or claim immigrants are not welcome here or promote falsehoods about immigration law and policy is not acceptable.

    On Face the Nation, this a.m. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    Bob Schieffer opened with asking Mr. Romney pointblank whether he would repeal/change  President Obama's announced approach as to certain young undocumented immigrants.  The question was asked four times without any direct answer...on the 4th try, Schieffer asked whether Romney would allow the Obama action to stand while Romney seeks some undefined "permanent change" to which he now mentions would be the correct approach.  Romney's response avoided a direct answer by saying that he "would have to work out" what to do.

    Mayhaps he is caught between a rightwing rock & a further rightwing hard place???

    Sounds like a good place for him... (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    I hope he's very uncomfortable there.

    I don't know, Anne. (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    My thinking is that Romney has become quite comfortable between right wing rock and a further right wing hard place.  After his professional maneuvering of that primary clown car, Romney seems as comfortable at his place as at dressage--in fact, it seems to have  become the new  Republican "moderate" position.   And, this is a good example: Romney is opposed to Obama's immigration executive order because it is not long term, and it could be reversed by the next president--maybe a president like him.

    Well, let's face it: they're both (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:32:51 PM EST
    playing for the sweet spot, the place where more people will vote for you than against you for a particular position.

    Obama's where he is on immigration for the same reason he's where he is on gay rights: pressure from the respective interest groups, and calculus that showed that going where those groups wanted him to be had more of an advantage than not.

    Romney's right about the possible short shelf life of Obama's new position - there's nothing to stop him - Obama - from backing off if he's re-elected; I wish I had some confidence that Obama's position would hold past the end of his first term, but I don't.

    As for Romney, it would shock me if he were to have any position that wasn't in opposition to Obama's; that's just not in the cards.


    RIP Rodney King (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:14:38 AM EST
    Found dead in his swimming pool this morning.

    I still remember when the tapes of his beating came out and the feeling of even a middle class white 30 something Orange County dweller  like me was 'Finally they have caught on tape what we all knew was going on.' When discussing the rioting after those policeman were acquitted most people don't know or remember that the beating of Rodney King was one in a long series of such occurences- beatings and unexplained deaths in police custody. When they were fiinally caught on tape there was such optimistic hope for justice and reform.  I hope Rodney King's name is eventually associated with such reform, and not the riots that followed the frustrated hopes.

    Indeed, and (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    not to mention Rodney King turned out to be such a sweet and gentle man, despite his troubles with addiction, etc.  It seems particularly grotesque that somebody with his gentle personality should have been subjected to that treatment.

    Rodney King was an (none / 0) (#46)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:16:41 PM EST
    imperfect individual as we all are. His crime was contempt of cop and they will beath the $hit out of you for that it they think they can get away with it. It does not matter what color you are, they will judge you on their percieved ability to hold them accountable.

    This action on immigration comes not a moment (none / 0) (#1)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    too soon.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sj on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 11:06:30 PM EST
    Just in time for campaign season.  While I say that somewhat cynically, I actually don't care what the motivation was --  I'm just glad it's being done, period.

    I actually wasn't thinking in terms of the (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:12:21 AM EST
    election although I'm sure that could be seen as the motivation.  I have been hoping for a long time that we could have an amnesty program for certain immigrants.  I think it's the right thing to do.

    "Could be seen"? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:31:17 PM EST
    I'm with SJ, I don't even care what the motivation is.  But please. Mr. Deportation suddenly gets religion?  I'm glad he did it, but he gets no karma points from me.

    a note to Jeralyn (none / 0) (#2)
    by jharp on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 04:33:47 PM EST
    Just a note to Jeralyn.

    I was not aware that I was limited 4 posts on GZ threads.

    If you think I am going to patronize a site that treats me differently than other posters you are mistaken. Thus I will up the ante for you and limit myself to 0 posts.

    And I will not visit Talk Left again.

    you are not being treated (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:01:41 PM EST
    than any other commenter who continuously posts comments that are contrary to the principles of this site. Almost every one of your comments states Mr. Zimmerman is guilty and ridicules those who think differently. Our comment rules are here. I explained the reason for the rule here in 2004.

    I did not limit you on threads not about Zimmerman. Many of your comments on Zimmerman were beyond expressing your opinion and were deleted when I first read them. 28 remain and while I disagree with them, I let them stay.

    I think it is a good decision for you to find another blog to comment on about the Zimmerman case. It's your decision whether you want to stop visiting TL entirely. While I don't like driving anyone away, I certainly understand your position.


    jeffinalabama has a new diary up: (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:47:54 PM EST
    They will have to earn their citizenship, it won't (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    just be given to them.  Why should those who are willing to do that be punished for what their parents did?  

    I have sympathy but, (none / 0) (#31)
    by lousy1 on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 12:52:36 AM EST
    why should we giving children of trespassers precedence over children of law abiding, patient, potential immigrants  waiting for their shot at the American dream?

    Probably by virtue of those children (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 09:00:27 AM EST
    not having any choice about being brought here, and in many cases, I would think, not even knowing there was anything illegal about their being here.

    Do you have children?  Have you ever moved with them?  Did you give them a choice about it, sit your 6-month old down and explain that Mommy and Daddy were going to go live in a new house in a new city, and while it was a great opportunity for the family, you would completely understand if he or she didn't want to come?  Did you put on your sad face and tell your baby, or your 2-year old, or your 4-year old, that Mommy and Daddy would miss then, but you were sure someone would be coming along to make sure they were okay?  That there was an outside chance some family member would take them, but if not, well, foster care wouldn't be so bad?

    Just as with voting, we should be encouraging any behavior that makes positive, productive contributions to this society.  Oh, but wouldn't that just mean swarms of people who don't have a legal right to be here, taking all those American jobs, and keeping American kids out of college?  And eventually, if all these illegals go to college, who the heck is going to clean the toilets and wash the dishes and clean the houses and cut the lawns and pick the crops - will, gasp!, Americans end up having to do those jobs?  Because we all know that if that happens, there's no way they're doing them for the kind of money the illegals were doing them for - pay people a living wage and next thing you know they want to live in your neighborhood and shop where you shop and so many of them are, you know, brown...I mean, is having an underclass really all that terrible?

    You have sympathy...sure you do; I bet you even have the semi-sad face to go along with it, too, don't you?


    I have children (none / 0) (#48)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:18:26 AM EST
    Would you smuggle yours into another country? I sure wouldn't.

    You would (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    if your public school system ended at sixth grade and you could not afford to pay for school after public school ended.

    I just said (none / 0) (#53)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    I wouldn't.

    There are other options available.


    I'd do what I have to do... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    to give my kids the best life possible...I sure as hell wouldn't let something as silly as imaginary lines or "papers! give me your papers!" stand in the way of providing my kids with a better life.

    A globalized economy demands open borders anyway, or we're begging for trouble.  Human beings deserve the same rights as capital at the very least...more rights even better.  Not less.


    In your quest for the good life, what other laws (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:23:29 PM EST
    would you ignore? Drug smuggling? Murder?

    Seems you are exactly the kind of person we should endeavour to keep out of this country.


    Tough break lousy1... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:51:07 PM EST
    birth lottery landed me here in the land of the not free enough and the home of the scared sh*tless....better luck next time. Ironically, you'd probably find many a paperless resident a more palatable countrymate than I;)

    In the course of living my life I refer to my conscience as a guide, not the f*ckin' law.  So that would be a yes on the drug smuggling to provide for my kids, thats no real crime...and a no on the murder.


    Perhaps one day (none / 0) (#61)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:50:25 PM EST
    We will have the privilege of commentating on a number of "Free kdog" threads.

    However I have confidence that, absent war or an unprecedented civil emergency, you can probably figure out how to take care of your family without committing multiple felonies.

    If you feel the need to become a victim migrate south of the border. Just be aware you need a visa.


    Only been victimized... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:03:30 AM EST
    on this side of the border, by your precious law...but the bastards can't keep me down! ;)

    Yeah, because ignoring those (none / 0) (#56)
    by sj on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:28:38 PM EST
    laws would also be good for a family.  

    But if you're advocating kicking out a citizen because they're not the right kind of person, I wonder if we could trade you for kdog. Who do you think would take you, I wonder?


    That is not being talked about (none / 0) (#57)
    by nyjets on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    We are talking about kicking out non-citizens who entered this country illegal. We are talking about people that have no right to be here.
    By allowing the non-citizens to remain, you are essentially ignoring the law and hurting American citizens.

    Well, that's what most people would be (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 05:16:15 PM EST
    talking about and although I disagree with that, it isn't what lousy was saying.  

    Read the thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:41:56 PM EST
    Awful easy to call some one you disagree with a racist.

    So sad.


    Oh, I read the thread (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:52:29 PM EST
    This one and lots of others.  But here's the money quote:
    Seems you are exactly the kind of person we should endeavour to keep out of this country.
    Which is pretty much of a pattern with other things I've seen you write.

    So you think (none / 0) (#63)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:10:05 PM EST
    Hoping to exclude potential immigrants who admit they would commit felonies for their own self interests is racist?

    Nice try. But I can assure you I am no more a racist than George Zimmerman and if pressed I have the credential to prove it


    What ARE you talking about? (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:55:19 PM EST
    Who, exactly, is this immigrant you are trying to kick out?

    And what the HECK does that have to with your Zimmerman obsession?  


    If you have (none / 0) (#67)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    problems with your recollections. Just review the thread.

    I certainly would welcome any legal immigrant or visitor  and endeavour to make them feel welcome.


    What the thread says is there for all to see (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:17:07 AM EST
    Everything said on the thread -- I rarely rely on recollections. Nice try, but you said what you said.  You can't just say "read the thread" and try to take the higher ground, as if you hadn't ever been rolling in the proverbial gutter.

    I've had enough of your dissembling.  I won't be responding so go ahead and have the last word.


    I looked at the thread again (none / 0) (#72)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 02:02:44 PM EST
    Just to double check. Nothing that even considers race.

    Oh well


    Drug running (none / 0) (#64)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:21:01 PM EST
    is good for a family? Is this a Godfather reference?

    I am not advocating expatriating anyone. If kdog is willing to risk running drugs he can serve his time in a domestic prison.

    However, given the chance to reject potential citizens with the same vice we have no choice.

    I think this opinion is supported by current law. I am less sure that the administration will enforce the law.

    I have traveled the world. Never had a proble with people 'taking me'. Then again, I don't flaunt their laws and customs.


    Well, that's just such a fine and (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:30:28 PM EST
    upstanding postion to take, but this isn't about what a parent would or would not do, but about punishing children for the actions of their parents; what sense does it make to punish, for example, a high school senior who never had any choice about what country he or she lived in?  Or was responsible for whether it was legal or illegal?

    BTW (none / 0) (#49)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:25:13 AM EST
    New Hampshire is not a large haven for illegal refugees.

    Yet some how all the menial tasks seem to get done. We do have a relatively low youth unemployment rate,

    If we induce the return of most of the illegal aliens then I guess you'll just have to get comfortable with that <gasp> brown skinned middle class neighbor


    You say you have sympathy but I see no (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    compassion or understanding of these peoples' situation from you.  So I'm saying you don't really have sympathy after all.  

    Sympathy (none / 0) (#47)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:57:11 AM EST
    is secondary to justice. Are you sympathetic to the carpet installer who will be losing his ability to make a living?

    I have sympathy for the drunks begging on the street. That doesn't mean I would hand them cash.


    To the extent that "sympathy" (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:40:30 PM EST
    may be related to or somewhat synonymous with (in the context of the no-fault-of-their-own young undocumented individuals addressed here)the equitable aspect of law, sympathy/compassion/mercy meet.  The division of strict common law courts of equity from law hundreds of years ago is not the model today. Courts are expected to do equity in the best sense when rendering opinions...not inventing their own law, but realizing equity where possible.  So...the automatic division between justice & mercy or justice & what you-have-termed sympathy is never so automatic.

    The idea & reality of considering factors, such as equitable aspects, as part of a a governmental enforcement priority approach--and addressing it formally via directive, policy issuance, etc.--is not new.  Endorcement discretion, as spelled out, does not provide for automatic anything. In fact, setting a specific policy to deal with the vast workload not only makes sense in terms of real equal application, but may well allow for providing justice in the complete sense of the term.


    This time it really works (none / 0) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    Perhaps this link will work ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Erehwon on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:03:34 PM EST

    I think the "www" needed to be dropped.

    Anyway, that's an educational article for folks who are objective and willing to read and learn ... but the up is down community may not be convinced, regrettably!

    thanks, (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:16:52 PM EST
    I finally got it to work right below this.

    Anyway, my point was that my family is in the landscaping, asphalt sealcoating, and in the winter, commercial snow/ice maintenance business. We use dozens of laborers at a time, hundreds over the years. The application/retentian rate for white/American workers is practically nil. That's just a fact. And, anyone in the business will tell you the same thing. we don't discriminate, we pay exactly the same to everyone we hire. As a matter of fact, we have more American Female workers than American males. read the literature, it's a culture thing.

    And, Arizona & Alabama, as xenophobic States as there are, are now begging to undo what their "leaders" and their government have done in trying to "protect them.

    They are losing Billions of dollars.


    We have the same here in VT (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:34:54 PM EST
    with dairy workers.

    here is the (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:54:11 PM EST
    link you posted

    sorry I had to delete the response with it but the link was too long.

    The thing is (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    that Obama's rule can be changed come next January.

    While that may get him votes I don't see it making any young illegal immigrants feel a lot better. It may anger some legal immigrants who spent a lot of time and money doing what they see as now being just given away. It may please some. Frankly I don't see anyone who was not going to vote for him deciding to vote for him because of this.

    It will undoubtedly further energize his opposition.

    The thing is that, like health care, he could have made some bold strokes that many would have supported. He should have pushed for a law that.

    1. Close the border. Totally. That will force wage increases in the jobs being done by now illegal immigrants and improve working conditions. (Currently employers are treated to an unending supply of workers who will work cheaply and in bad conditions without complaining.)

    2. Issue green cards to everyone here that is not in any type of felony type legal trouble. They may apply for citizenship but receive no favorable treatment for  family members beyond their wife and children.

    3. Deport all new illegal immigrants and/or any that do not take advantage of the new rules. Issue large fines for anyone who employs illegal immigrants. Very large fines. Jail time for repeat offenders.

    4. Change the current law to favoring only people that we need. That would be people educated in medicine and other "hard sciences."

    5. Change the 14th to exclude children born in the US of illegal aliens.

    Seems pretty simple to me.

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:07:06 PM EST
    think it will further energize the opposition. The fact that the GOP feels like it is entitled to the Presidency and anyone who isn't a Republican does not deserve to be President has been obvious for quite a long time. You can't energize these people any more. The radical fundamentalists are going to come out and vote whether or not Obama had done this.

    Pretty much everything (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:23:09 PM EST
    seems simple to you.  I'm not entirely sure you've ever encountered a subject complex enough that you couldn't handle it with bullet points.  

    You know sj, 99% of things in life (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    are simple when you break them down into their component parts?? Didn't any one ever teach you "problem solving??"

    I suspect you are what I call "mainframers." They were the computer folks who told us that anything associated with the computer in the back room took 1000 main years and cost a million dollars and only they could define what the limits were.

    When I was running a sales support group I asked our IBM'ers for a report on the business booked on a weekly basis. Something like the above was their answer. My response? I had the 6 region secretaries (yes, we had secretaries back then) call my secretary every Friday by 12 noon east coast with a total of the booked business in their region... My secretary added the numbers up and I had a perfectly acceptable SIMPLE solution that told me and my boss what we wanted to know....

    How close to forecast were we? What was the trend? Which regions were in trouble and needed help??


    Exactly, but those aren't component parts (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:24:51 PM EST
    Those are bullet points.  That's a Power Point presentation, and all the engineering is happening back in the workroom.  

    And your suspicion would be wrong.  In any case, your salesman weren't trying to resolve issues that affect potentially millions of people.  They were trying to meet their quota.  


    OK, I see that some of our comments (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 10:20:45 AM EST
    got chopped.

    Don't see why, but it's not my blog.

    So, back to the subject.

    What is wrong with 1, or any or all, of the 6 points I made.


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#69)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:01:05 AM EST

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 01:15:48 AM EST