Hepatitis from green onions

[Bouncer]

November 17, 2003 Community Is Reeling From Hepatitis Outbreak
By LYDIA POLGREEN

MONACA, Pa., Nov. 16 - It was her friend Eve's idea: a bunch
of high school girls and a bunch of Mexican food to celebrate
her 15th birthday. Jennifer Seevers, 14, said Mexican food was
not her favorite, but it was Eve's birthday and in Beaver
County there are only so many places for Mexican food.
Therefore, Chi-Chi's it was.

So Jennifer and a dozen other girls from Ambridge High School
all sat down to plates of nachos, fajitas and tacos last
month. Within a few weeks, one of the girls was seriously ill
with hepatitis A, a potentially fatal virus that can lead to
liver failure, and Jennifer was lining up to get a vaccine to
keep her from developing the disease too.

"I feel really lucky I didn't get sick," Jennifer said. "But I
know a lot of people did."

In the towns and boroughs in Beaver County, about 20 miles
northwest of Pittsburgh - which has the distinction of having
produced an unusual number of world-class football players,
including Joe Namath and Mike Ditka - it seemed everyone
either ate at Chi-Chi's last month or knows someone who did.
Three people have died and more than 500 have been sickened by
an outbreak of the disease linked to the restaurant.

Jennifer's older sister, Dana, came in contact with the virus
when the woman she baby-sits for came down with a serious case
of hepatitis A and had to be hospitalized. Doctors recommended
that Dana Seevers, 19, and her 9-month-old daughter, Cassidy,
be vaccinated.

"It's pretty crazy because it just affects everyone," Dana
Seevers said. "Everyone eats there. You just don't know who
could be sick."

Health officials in Pennsylvania said the number of illnesses
and deaths was likely to rise through this week as more people
developed the virus, which takes nearly a month to produce
symptoms and can be deadly in some cases.

Richard McGarvey, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department
of Health, said that while further deaths were possible,
officials hoped that the antibody inoculations given to more
than 8,500 people in the weeks since news of the outbreak was
made public would reduce the number of new infections.

This is the biggest outbreak of food-borne hepatitis A in
the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention said.

The exact cause of the infection is not known, but
investigators are looking closely at green onions, or
scallions, which are used in several dishes Chi-Chi's offers
and are often served raw. Outbreaks of hepatitis A in
Tennessee, North Carolina and Georgia in September were linked
to scallions, investigators said.

"We haven't been able to pin it down yet," Mr. McGarvey said.
"Green onions and scallions are obviously one of the sources
we are looking at."

On Saturday, the Food and Drug Administration recommended that
scallions be thoroughly cooked to avoid infection.

The source of the virus in the Tennessee outbreak appeared to
be Mexico, the agency said. Investigators are working with
Mexican officials to determine where the shipment originated
and where the scallions went.

All the people sickened in the Pennsylvania outbreak ate at a
Chi-Chi's restaurant at the Beaver Valley Mall, which draws
patrons from a string of working-class towns along the Ohio
River west of Pittsburgh, between early October and Nov. 2,
when the restaurant voluntarily closed. Eleven workers at
Chi-Chi's tested positive for hepatitis A and are being
treated, Bill Zavertnik, chief operating officer of Chi-Chi's,
told The Associated Press. The earlier outbreaks of hepatitis
A did not involve restaurants in the Chi-Chi's chain, based in
Louisville, Ky.

Hepatitis A is caused by a virus, and it is most commonly
transmitted by what doctors call the fecal-oral route, meaning
that people catch it from food or drinks that have been
contaminated with fecal matter from an infected person. People
with hepatitis A who fail to wash their hands after using the
bathroom and then handle food can spread the virus; hand
washing is an important means of preventing the disease from
spreading. Contaminated foods that are eaten raw or are
lightly cooked can be a source of infection.

Mr. Zavertnik told The Associated Press that all workers at
Chi-Chi's were trained in federal food safety standards.

The average incubation period is 28 days, with a range of 15
to 50 days, and people may transmit the virus before they
themselves develop symptoms.

In children, the disease is usually mild; some may have no
symptoms at all. Adults are more likely to have symptoms,
including jaundice, dark urine, fatigue, abdominal pain, loss
of appetite, nausea, diarrhea and fever. A blood test is
needed to make the diagnosis. There is no specific treatment
once the illness develops, but infected people are advised to
avoid drinking alcohol until they recover fully, to avoid
damaging the liver. Many people recover within a few weeks,
but in some cases the symptoms can last two months or longer.

Fewer than 0.4 percent of all cases in the United States are
fatal, and those are usually in elderly people. Unlike
hepatitis B and C, hepatitis A does not turn into a chronic
infection.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
10,616 cases of hepatitis A were reported in 2001. Not all
cases are reported, and the agency estimates that there were
actually 45,000 acute cases that year.

State health officials in Pennsylvania first learned of the
outbreak from emergency room doctors in Beaver County who
reported an unusual number of cases of hepatitis A in late
October. Investigators from the health department began
interviewing the people who had fallen ill and quickly
determined the common thread: all of them had eaten at
Chi-Chi's at the Beaver Valley Mall.

Once the department isolated the restaurant as the probable
source of the infection, Chi-Chi's closed the restaurant
voluntarily. But pinning down the source of the illness within
the restaurant has been more difficult, Mr. McGarvey said.
While several employees are infected with hepatitis A, the
sheer size of the outbreak made it seem less likely that a
single person transmitted the disease, he said. However, he
added, the department has not ruled out that possibility.

"We first started the investigation looking at food handlers,
but the numbers kept going up," Mr. McGarvey said. "We had no
idea the numbers would go up that high."

--------

[Jeff]

The hepatitis was not from green onions. It was from hepatits
A, which is a virus. The virus *might* have contaminated the
green onions, but the green onions themselves did not cause
the illness.

It is quite possible that whatever was contaminated was
contaminated before it reached the restaurant.

Jeff

"bouncer" <2231@wb.net> wrote in message
news:3fb8618d.23409827@news.io.com...

<Illeglally copied material deleted

[Jitney]

Another benefit of unrestricted illegal immigration. Even
though a majority of Americans want it controlled, our
political system will not fix it because Republicans want
cheap labor for their big business buddies and Democrats want
illegal immigrants to stuff the ballot boxes with their
purchased votes.-Jitney

[Mike V]

Are you a first grade teacher, Jeff? I am sure you are very
well thought of! MikeV

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpahn5$gq7@library2.airnews.net...
> The hepatitis was not from green onions. It was from
> hepatits A, which is
a
> virus. The virus *might* have contaminated the green onions,
> but the green onions themselves did not cause the illness.
>
> It is quite possible that whatever was contaminated was
> contaminated
before
> it reached the restaurant.
>
> Jeff
>
> "bouncer" <2231@wb.net> wrote in message
> news:3fb8618d.23409827@news.io.com...
>
> <Illeglally copied material deleted

[Reg]

Jeff wrote:

> The hepatitis was not from green onions. It was from
> hepatits A, which is a virus. The virus *might* have
> contaminated the green onions, but the green onions
> themselves did not cause the illness.

And how is that an important distinction?

> It is quite possible that whatever was contaminated was
> contaminated before it reached the restaurant.

Or not.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

[Dimitri]

"jitney" <jtnospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8002be7.0311170622.19151e90@posting.google.com...
> Another benefit of unrestricted illegal immigration. Even
> though a majority of Americans want it controlled, our
> political system will not fix it because Republicans want
> cheap labor for their big business buddies and Democrats
> want illegal immigrants to stuff the ballot boxes with their
> purchased votes.-Jitney

Sure, it's a right wing conspiracy to reduce the working class
people who frequent the Beaver Valley Mall,

Dimitri

[Zakhar]

"Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:le5ub.26042$tz5.21280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > The hepatitis was not from green onions. It was from
> > hepatits A, which
is a
> > virus. The virus *might* have contaminated the green
> > onions, but the
green
> > onions themselves did not cause the illness.
>
> And how is that an important distinction?

Because ignorant people will believe that onions are
dangerous, when it's the human shit on the onions that is
dangerous.

>
> > It is quite possible that whatever was contaminated was
> > contaminated
before
> > it reached the restaurant.
>
> Or not.

>
> --
> Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service)
> (dot) com

[Ray]

"Dimitri" <Dimitri_C@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:UX6ub.25640$5a2.1980@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "jitney" <jtnospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b8002be7.0311170622.19151e90@posting.google.com...
> > Another benefit of unrestricted illegal immigration. Even
> > though a majority of Americans want it controlled, our
> > political system will not fix it because Republicans want
> > cheap labor for their big business buddies and Democrats
> > want illegal immigrants to stuff the ballot boxes with
> > their purchased votes.-Jitney
>
> Sure, it's a right wing conspiracy to reduce the working
> class people who frequent the Beaver Valley Mall,
>
>
> Dimitri

Can you guys please cut all this racist talk.

[Jeff]

"Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:le5ub.26042$tz5.21280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > The hepatitis was not from green onions. It was from
> > hepatits A, which
is a
> > virus. The virus *might* have contaminated the green
> > onions, but the
green
> > onions themselves did not cause the illness.
>
> And how is that an important distinction?

I think very important. The green onions themselves are
healthy. For example, there is no need to avoid eating green
onions you grow yourself.

> > It is quite possible that whatever was contaminated was
> > contaminated
before
> > it reached the restaurant.
>
> Or not.
>
> --
> Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service)
> (dot) com

[Reg]

Zakhar wrote:

> "Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:le5ub.26042$tz5.21280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...

>>And how is that an important distinction?
>
>
> Because ignorant people will believe that onions are
> dangerous, when it's the human shit on the onions that is
> dangerous.

That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just those
received from eating onions. You could say the same thing
about meat, for instance.

There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will protect
them from food poisoning. Not true.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

[Bill]

Zakhar wrote:

> "Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:le5ub.26042$tz5.21280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Jeff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The hepatitis was not from green onions. It was from
>>>hepatits A, which
>
> is a
>
>>>virus. The virus *might* have contaminated the green
>>>onions, but the
>
> green
>
>>>onions themselves did not cause the illness.
>>
>>And how is that an important distinction?
>
>
> Because ignorant people will believe that onions are
> dangerous, when it's the human shit on the onions that is
> dangerous.

No, FuckHar. Thinking people will realize that "going veggie"
is meaningless; it doesn't automatically mean you're avoiding
dangerous pathogens.

You stupid, STUPID asshole, FuckHar.

[Ravinwulf]

Ray wrote:
> "Dimitri" <Dimitri_C@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:UX6ub.25640$5a2.1980@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>"jitney" <jtnospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:b8002be7.0311170622.19151e90@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Another benefit of unrestricted illegal immigration. Even
>>>though a majority of Americans want it controlled, our
>>>political system will not fix it because Republicans want
>>>cheap labor for their big business buddies and Democrats
>>>want illegal immigrants to stuff the ballot boxes with
>>>their purchased votes.-Jitney
>>
>>Sure, it's a right wing conspiracy to reduce the working
>>class people who frequent the Beaver Valley Mall,
>
> Can you guys please cut all this racist talk.

Spare us the oversensitivity and political correctness. There
was no mention of race in either of the above posts, only
illegal immigration.

Regards, ravinwulf

[Reg]

Jeff wrote:

> I think very important. The green onions themselves are
> healthy. For example, there is no need to avoid eating green
> onions you grow yourself.

Green onions can carry food poisoning if improperly handled,
even if you grew them yourself.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

[Zakhar]

"Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nz5ub.26045$OG5.15993@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:le5ub.26042$tz5.21280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >>And how is that an important distinction?
> >
> >
> > Because ignorant people will believe that onions are
> > dangerous, when
it's
> > the human shit on the onions that is dangerous.
>
> That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just those
> received from eating onions. You could say the same thing
> about meat, for instance.

Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally comes
from the animal's intestinal tract.

>
> There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
> espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
> protect them from food poisoning. Not true.

It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.

>
> --
> Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service)
> (dot) com

[Bill]

Reg wrote:

> Zakhar wrote:
>
>> "Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:le5ub.26042$tz5.21280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>> And how is that an important distinction?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because ignorant people will believe that onions are
>> dangerous, when it's the human shit on the onions that is
>> dangerous.
>
>
> That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just those
> received from eating onions. You could say the same thing
> about meat, for instance.
>
> There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
> espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
> protect them from food poisoning. Not true.

Exactly right, and exactly the point that FuckHar, the
incoherent semi-"vegan", deliberately ignores.

[Peter]

ravinwulf wrote:

> Ray wrote:
>
>> "Dimitri" <Dimitri_C@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:UX6ub.25640$5a2.1980@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>> "jitney" <jtnospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b8002be7.0311170622.19151e90@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>> Another benefit of unrestricted illegal immigration. Even
>>>> though a majority of Americans want it controlled, our
>>>> political system will not fix it because Republicans want
>>>> cheap labor for their big business buddies and Democrats
>>>> want illegal immigrants to stuff the ballot boxes with
>>>> their purchased votes.-Jitney
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, it's a right wing conspiracy to reduce the working
>>> class people who frequent the Beaver Valley Mall,
>>
>>
>> Can you guys please cut all this racist talk.
>
>
> Spare us the oversensitivity and political correctness.
> There was no mention of race in either of the above posts,
> only illegal immigration.

Racist Ray Slater was only making a leaden joke. He's the
ultimate bigot, regularly and frequently calling posters
"nigger", "kike", "gook" and so on.

[Bill]

Zakhar wrote:

> "Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nz5ub.26045$OG5.15993@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Zakhar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:le5ub.26042$tz5.21280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>>And how is that an important distinction?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because ignorant people will believe that onions are
>>>dangerous, when
>
> it's
>
>>>the human shit on the onions that is dangerous.
>>
>>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just those
>>received from eating onions. You could say the same thing
>>about meat, for instance.
>
>
> Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally
> comes from the animal's intestinal tract.
>
>
>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
>
>
> It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.

You have no basis for concluding that, FuckHar, you
greasy little prick, except your bigoted semi-"vegan"
religious beliefs.

[Usual Susp]

Zakhar, Ray's racist protege, wrote:
>>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just those
>>received from eating onions. You could say the same thing
>>about meat, for instance.
>
> Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally
> comes from the animal's intestinal tract.

There's more shit on vegetables and mushrooms. Mushrooms are
grown in shit. Birds fly over the fields and drop loads
indiscriminately. Farm workers relieve themselves in the
fields as they collect the produce. Etc.

>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
>
> It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.

Ipse dixit. Raw faddists are at higher than average risk of
food-borne illness, especially when sprouts are consumed.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/reg/2003/pd042103f.html
http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2003/08/13/bz13.htm

[Zakhar]

"TexMex" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:_R6ub.62873$PH6.9193@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Zakhar wrote:
> >>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just
> >>those received from eating onions. You could say the same
> >>thing about meat, for instance.
> >
> > Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally
> > comes from the animal's intestinal tract.
>
> There's more shit on vegetables and mushrooms.

Evidence?

Mushrooms are grown in
> shit.

Not true. It might contain shit, but is not shit.
http://www.americanmushroom.org/compost.htm

Birds fly over the fields and drop loads
indiscriminately. Farm
> workers relieve themselves in the fields as they collect the
> produce. Etc.

You tosser, surely you can do better than this drivel.

>
> >>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
> >>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
> >>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
> >
> > It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.
>
> Ipse dixit. Raw faddists are at higher than average risk of
> food-borne illness, especially when sprouts are consumed.

LOL.

THAT does not follow, or "Ipse dixit" as you arrogantly claim.

Raw food has never been mentioned. READ what I wrote dummy
"generally will reduce the risk".

>
> http://www.ncpa.org/iss/reg/2003/pd042103f.html
> http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2003/08/13/bz13.htm

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.med.nutrition Bill <BillC@kenstarr.not> wrote or
quoted:
> Zakhar wrote:
>> "Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
>>
>> It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.
>
> You have no basis for concluding that, FuckHar, you greasy
> little prick, except your bigoted semi-"vegan" religious
> beliefs.

Of course it is quite accurate.

Check the common sources of food poisoning - and their
sources:

Campylobacter Milk and poultry Salmonella Eggs, meat
(especially poultry) Clostridia Spores in food (especially
meat) Listeria Meat, dairy foods, fish, shellfish

The first is the most common sort of food poisioning seen
by doctors.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[Usual Susp]

Racist Zakhar wrote:
>>>>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just
>>>>those received
>>>
>>>>from eating onions. You could say the same thing about
>>>>meat, for
>>>
>>>>instance.
>>>
>>>Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally
>>>comes from the animal's intestinal tract.
>>
>>There's more shit on vegetables and mushrooms.
>
> Evidence?

From a food safety advocacy website:

While it might seem strange that fruit and vegetables
would come in contact with the human and animal feces
that often harbors pathogenic bacteria, there are many
routes by which this can happen. Wild animals whether
small, such as rodents or birds, or large such as
deer, can often gain access to a farm or orchard
during the growing season and can contaminated produce
with their feces and even other animals' feces with
which they've come into contact. The water with which
produce comes into contact while growing should be
clean; yet, well water or nearby streams can become
contaminated and rainwater runoff can bring
contamination from land higher up, thereby
contaminating the crops. Lastly, the application of
manure from cattle or poultry can easily introduce
pathogens. There are no federal rules or regulations
regarding the use of fresh manure as a fertilizer for
produce. As of February, 1998, voluntary organic
standards for delaying the application of raw manure
recommended not applying it within 60 days of harvest.
Yet, E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella have been shown to
survive for many months in soil.

The location of the farm or orchard or processing
facilities near other farm animals can also result in
contamination. It is believed that some bacteria can
form spores and be blown in dust onto nearby produce
or into water used for rinsing. Birds, as well, have
been know to carry pathogens such as Campylobacter and
E. coli O157:H7, so proximity can be an issue.

Harvesting introduces the human element. Unclean hands
can contaminate fresh produce with human pathogens
such as hepatitis
A. Workers can walk through contaminated dirt and
climb up ladders placing their hands on rungs they
have just soiled. Often, workers sit on their
picking bags while taking a break. Baskets are
placed on the ground and can easily get
contaminated soil in them. Thus, previously
pristine produce can be subsequently contaminated
during harvest.

The processing facility itself can be left open to
contamination from dust or animals. Dirt floors can
contribute to the risk of contamination. In the
processing shed, produce can be rinsed with unclean
water, whether contaminated by dust or animals or
previous produce passing through the process. Tools
such as filters, knives or fingernails may not be
sterilized between processes or may left in a place
where they can again become contaminated via dust,
nonpotable water or animals. A part may fall on the
floor, be picked up and put back into the process
again without being properly cleaned. Lastly, the
final packaging materials, cartons, etc. can be
contaminated by previous fruit or tainted water, by
being set on contaminated ground tainted by manure, or
by being transported in a vehicle that previously held
animals. http://tinyurl.com/vd0z

>>Mushrooms are grown in shit.
>
> Not true. It might contain shit, but is not shit.
> http://www.americanmushroom.org/compost.htm

Composted manure is still *manure* no matter how much straw or
sawdust or other material is added.

>>Birds fly over the fields and drop loads indiscriminately.
>>Farm workers relieve themselves in the fields as they
>>collect the produce. Etc.
>
> You tosser, surely you can do better than this drivel.

See above, wanker.

>>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
>>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
>>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
>>>
>>>It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. Raw faddists are at higher than average risk of
>>food-borne illness, especially when sprouts are consumed.
>
> THAT does not follow,

Which would be "non sequitur," not "ipse dixit."

> or "Ipse dixit" as you arrogantly claim.

My claim was supported with two links, so I beg to differ
that it's ipse
dixit.

> Raw food has never been mentioned.

Vegetarianism, though, was. Raw faddists comprise a segment of
the veg-nism. The issue the OP raised was vegetarianism and
food safety. My remark was apropos, dickhead.

> READ what I wrote dummy "generally will reduce the risk".

I did, you smelly cocksucking racist. And your comment is ipse
dixit -- an unsupported assertion (or "so you say"). So
where's your evidence?

I see you didn't bother commenting on the following links.
You should've read them before making such a big fat ass
of yourself.

>>http://www.ncpa.org/iss/reg/2003/pd042103f.html
>>http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2003/08/13/bz13.htm

[Usual Susp]

Tim Tyler wrote:
>>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
>>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
>>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
>>>
>>>It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.
>>
>>You have no basis for concluding that, FuckHar, you greasy
>>little prick, except your bigoted semi-"vegan" religious
>>beliefs.
>
> Of course it is quite accurate.

Actually, it isn't.

> Check the common sources of food poisoning - and their
> sources:

Those are indeed common, but not the ONLY instances of
food-borne illness. Dare I remind you of the outbreak
attributed to contaminated Odwalla Juice in 1996?

> Campylobacter Milk and poultry

And wildlife: http://tinyurl.com/venp (pdf)

> Salmonella Eggs, meat (especially poultry) Clostridia Spores
> in food (especially meat) Listeria Meat, dairy foods, fish,
> shellfish

And wildlife: http://tinyurl.com/vd0z

> The first is the most common sort of food poisioning seen by
> doctors.

You also conveniently left out that cross-contamination can
and does occur. Since many wild birds, who fly over crops and
take dumps without ANY consideration for vegetarians below,
carry campylobacter, one can become infected through
contaminated produce. Wildlife also act as vectors for all the
other named pathogens you listed (see:
http://tinyurl.com/vd0z).

Guess I will remind you of Odwalla. One child was killed and
scores more sickened by e Coli infection from unpasteurized
apple juice. Odwalla's harvesting practices (using "ground" or
fallen fruit) and machinery were both faulty. Pasteurization
could have prevented or at least minimized the outbreak. Since
the incident, Odwalla pasteurizes all juice.

The following is a list of juice-related epidemics of food
poisoning.
http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/food/juice-outbreaks.htm

Raw sprouts often are at the source of Salmonella outbreaks.
Since sprouts are often raised away from animals, perhaps you
can tell us the source of such cross-contamination.

Finally, hepatitis A, which is at issue in the Beaver Valley
outbreak, is spread primarily through raw fruits and
vegetables, especially salads. Animals aren't the vectors for
hep A, people are.

[Zakhar]

"TexMex" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:IA7ub.63383$Mc.45706@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Zakhar wrote:
> >>>>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just
> >>>>those received
> >>>
> >>>>from eating onions. You could say the same thing about
> >>>>meat, for
> >>>
> >>>>instance.
> >>>
> >>>Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally
> >>>comes from the animal's intestinal tract.
> >>
> >>There's more shit on vegetables and mushrooms.
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> From a food safety advocacy website:
>
> While it might seem strange that fruit and vegetables would
> come in contact with the human and animal feces that often
> harbors pathogenic bacteria, there are many routes by which
> this can happen. Wild animals whether small, such as rodents
> or birds, or large such as deer, can often gain access to a
> farm or orchard during the growing season and can
> contaminated produce with their feces and even other
> animals' feces with which they've come into contact. The
> water with which produce comes into contact while growing
> should be clean; yet, well water or nearby streams can
> become contaminated and rainwater runoff can bring
> contamination from land higher up, thereby contaminating the
> crops. Lastly, the application of manure from cattle or
> poultry can easily introduce pathogens. There are no federal
> rules or regulations regarding the use of fresh manure as a
> fertilizer for produce. As of February, 1998, voluntary
> organic standards for delaying the application of raw manure
> recommended not applying it within 60 days of harvest. Yet,
> E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella have been shown to survive
> for many months in soil.
>
> The location of the farm or orchard or processing
> facilities near other farm animals can also result in
> contamination. It is believed that some bacteria can form
> spores and be blown in dust onto nearby produce or into
> water used for rinsing. Birds, as well, have been know to
> carry pathogens such as Campylobacter and E. coli O157:H7,
> so proximity can be an issue.
>
> Harvesting introduces the human element. Unclean hands can
> contaminate fresh produce with human pathogens such as
> hepatitis
> A. Workers can walk through contaminated dirt and climb up
> ladders placing their hands on rungs they have just
> soiled. Often, workers sit on their picking bags while
> taking a break. Baskets are placed on the ground and can
> easily get contaminated soil in them. Thus, previously
> pristine produce can be subsequently contaminated during
> harvest.
>
> The processing facility itself can be left open to
> contamination from dust or animals. Dirt floors can
> contribute to the risk of contamination. In the processing
> shed, produce can be rinsed with unclean water, whether
> contaminated by dust or animals or previous produce passing
> through the process. Tools such as filters, knives or
> fingernails may not be sterilized between processes or may
> left in a place where they can again become contaminated via
> dust, nonpotable water or animals. A part may fall on the
> floor, be picked up and put back into the process again
> without being properly cleaned. Lastly, the final packaging
> materials, cartons, etc. can be contaminated by previous
> fruit or tainted water, by being set on contaminated ground
> tainted by manure, or by being transported in a vehicle that
> previously held animals. http://tinyurl.com/vd0z

I asked for evidence. This is just a list of "can this and
can that".

>
> >>Mushrooms are grown in shit.
> >
> > Not true. It might contain shit, but is not shit.
> > http://www.americanmushroom.org/compost.htm
>
> Composted manure is still *manure* no matter how much straw
> or sawdust or other material is added.

Compost is compost dummy. It's like me stating it's
composted straw. You're nearer the composition of manure
than mushroom compost.

>
> >>Birds fly over the fields and drop loads indiscriminately.
> >>Farm workers relieve themselves in the fields as they
> >>collect the produce.
Etc.
> >
> > You tosser, surely you can do better than this drivel.
>
> See above, wanker.

Still drivel.

>
> >>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
> >>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
> >>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
> >>>
> >>>It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the
> >>>risk.
> >>
> >>Ipse dixit. Raw faddists are at higher than average risk
> >>of food-borne illness, especially when sprouts are
> >>consumed.
> >
> > THAT does not follow,
>
> Which would be "non sequitur," not "ipse dixit."
>
> > or "Ipse dixit" as you arrogantly claim.
>
> My claim was supported with two links, so I beg to differ
> that it's ipse
> dixit.
>
> > Raw food has never been mentioned.

It's a red herring.

READ what I wrote dummy "generally will reduce the risk".

>
> Vegetarianism, though, was. Raw faddists comprise a segment
> of the veg-nism. The issue the OP raised was vegetarianism
> and food safety. My remark was apropos, dickhead.
>
> > READ what I wrote dummy "generally will reduce the risk".
>
> I did, you smelly cocksucking racist. And your comment is
> ipse dixit -- an unsupported assertion (or "so you say"). So
> where's your evidence?

You'd say something like "Why don't you go back to the old
country?" Wouldn't you, TexMex?

Most food borne illness is from meat.

Start with

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html

>
> I see you didn't bother commenting on the following links.
> You should've read them before making such a big fat ass of
> yourself.
>
> >>http://www.ncpa.org/iss/reg/2003/pd042103f.html
> >>http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2003/08/13/bz13.htm

It's about raw food, not about the general vegetarian diet
that we were discussing.

[Zakhar]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:Xzbub.64578$Mc.15621@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Tim Tyler wrote:
> >>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
> >>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
> >>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
> >>>
> >>>It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the
> >>>risk.
> >>
> >>You have no basis for concluding that, FuckHar, you greasy
> >>little prick, except your bigoted semi-"vegan" religious
> >>beliefs.
> >
> > Of course it is quite accurate.
>
> Actually, it isn't.
>
> > Check the common sources of food poisoning - and their
> > sources:
>
> Those are indeed common, but not the ONLY instances of
> food-borne illness.

No one has stated it's the ONLY instances of food-borne
illness, dummy.

>Dare I remind you of the outbreak attributed to contaminated
>Odwalla Juice in 1996?

Recent and up to date facts then Tex?

>
> > Campylobacter Milk and poultry
>
> And wildlife: http://tinyurl.com/venp (pdf)
>
> > Salmonella Eggs, meat (especially poultry) Clostridia
> > Spores in food (especially meat) Listeria Meat, dairy
> > foods, fish, shellfish
>
> And wildlife: http://tinyurl.com/vd0z
>
> > The first is the most common sort of food poisioning seen
> > by doctors.
>
> You also conveniently left out that cross-contamination can
> and does occur. Since many wild birds, who fly over crops
> and take dumps without ANY consideration for vegetarians
> below, carry campylobacter, one can become infected through
> contaminated produce. Wildlife also act as vectors for all
> the other named pathogens you listed (see:
> http://tinyurl.com/vd0z).
>
> Guess I will remind you of Odwalla. One child was killed and
> scores more sickened by e Coli infection from unpasteurized
> apple juice.

Wow! Impressive numbers tex:, especially when the estimate is
that food diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses,
325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United
States each year.

>Odwalla's harvesting practices (using "ground" or fallen
>fruit) and machinery were both faulty. Pasteurization could
>have prevented or at least minimized the outbreak. Since the
>incident, Odwalla pasteurizes all juice.
>
> The following is a list of juice-related epidemics of food
> poisoning.
> http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/food/juice-outbreaks.htm
>
> Raw sprouts often are at the source of Salmonella outbreaks.
> Since sprouts are often raised away from animals, perhaps
> you can tell us the source of such cross-contamination.
>
> Finally, hepatitis A, which is at issue in the Beaver Valley
> outbreak, is spread primarily through raw fruits and
> vegetables, especially salads. Animals aren't the vectors
> for hep A, people are.

[Bill]

FuckHar, mediocrity, wrote:

> usual suspect <support@our.troops> wrote in message
> news:IA7ub.63383$Mc.45706@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>FuckHar, mediocrity, wrote:
>>
>>>>>>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just
>>>>>>those received

>>>>Mushrooms are grown in shit.
>>>
>>>Not true. It might contain shit, but is not shit.
>>>http://www.americanmushroom.org/compost.htm
>>
>>Composted manure is still *manure* no matter how much straw
>>or sawdust or other material is added.
>
>
> Compost is compost dummy.

Compost is you, dummy.

[Usual Susp]

Racisto Pendejo wrote:
>>>>>>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just
>>>>>>those received from eating onions. You could say the
>>>>>>same thing about meat, for instance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally
>>>>>comes from the animal's intestinal tract.
>>>>
>>>>There's more shit on vegetables and mushrooms.
>>>
>>>Evidence?
>>
>> From a food safety advocacy website:
>>
>>While it might seem strange that fruit and vegetables would
>>come in contact with the human and animal feces that often
>>harbors pathogenic bacteria, there are many routes by which
>>this can happen. Wild animals whether small, such as rodents
>>or birds, or large such as deer, can often gain access to a
>>farm or orchard during the growing season and can
>>contaminated produce with their feces and even other
>>animals' feces with which they've come into contact. The
>>water with which produce comes into contact while growing
>>should be clean; yet, well water or nearby streams can
>>become contaminated and rainwater runoff can bring
>>contamination from land higher up, thereby contaminating the
>>crops. Lastly, the application of manure from cattle or
>>poultry can easily introduce pathogens. There are no federal
>>rules or regulations regarding the use of fresh manure as a
>>fertilizer for produce. As of February, 1998, voluntary
>>organic standards for delaying the application of raw manure
>>recommended not applying it within 60 days of harvest. Yet,
>>E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella have been shown to survive
>>for many months in soil.
>>
>>The location of the farm or orchard or processing
>>facilities near other farm animals can also result in
>>contamination. It is believed that some bacteria can form
>>spores and be blown in dust onto nearby produce or into
>>water used for rinsing. Birds, as well, have been know to
>>carry pathogens such as Campylobacter and E. coli O157:H7,
>>so proximity can be an issue.
>>
>>Harvesting introduces the human element. Unclean hands can
>>contaminate fresh produce with human pathogens such as
>>hepatitis
>>A. Workers can walk through contaminated dirt and climb up
>> ladders placing their hands on rungs they have just
>> soiled. Often, workers sit on their picking bags while
>> taking a break. Baskets are placed on the ground and can
>> easily get contaminated soil in them. Thus, previously
>> pristine produce can be subsequently contaminated during
>> harvest.
>>
>>The processing facility itself can be left open to
>>contamination from dust or animals. Dirt floors can
>>contribute to the risk of contamination. In the processing
>>shed, produce can be rinsed with unclean water, whether
>>contaminated by dust or animals or previous produce passing
>>through the process. Tools such as filters, knives or
>>fingernails may not be sterilized between processes or may
>>left in a place where they can again become contaminated via
>>dust, nonpotable water or animals. A part may fall on the
>>floor, be picked up and put back into the process again
>>without being properly cleaned. Lastly, the final packaging
>>materials, cartons, etc. can be contaminated by previous
>>fruit or tainted water, by being set on contaminated ground
>>tainted by manure, or by being transported in a vehicle that
>>previously held animals. http://tinyurl.com/vd0z
>
> I asked for evidence. This is just a list of "can this and
> can that".

Take it up with food safety advocates, pendejo estupido. It
can and DOES happen. Want me to show you lists of outbreaks
related to unpasteurized juices, unwashed produce, and other
vegetarian fare?

>>>>Mushrooms are grown in shit.
>>>
>>>Not true. It might contain shit, but is not shit.
>>>http://www.americanmushroom.org/compost.htm
>>
>>Composted manure is still *manure* no matter how much straw
>>or sawdust or other material is added.
>
> Compost is compost dummy.

Netherlands info... Two formulas are in use now, one for horse
manure compost and one for synthetic (= straw) compost. A
tonne of horse manure is supplemented with 100 kg of chicken
manure and 25 kg of gypsum.

I'll let you do the math and tell me what percentage of that
is manure.

The amount of water to be added varies from 200–800 l
per tonne. This results in 900–1300 kg of compost.

In other words, they make a bunch of shit wet.

For synthetic compost preferably wheat or rye straw
is used. Per tonne 600–900 kg of chicken manure, 75
kg of gypsum and about 5000 l of water are added,
resulting in 3000 kg of compost. The straw is first
mixed with 2/3 of the chicken manure, watered en gets
heated for 7–10 days. The purpose of this
pretreatment is to make a product similar to horse
manure as it leaves the stables.

Again, I'll let you do the math. The straw is a fairy inert
part, at least bioactively. It's the shit that matters.

http://www.actahort.org/books/172/172_27.htm

> It's like me stating it's composted straw.

I would laugh my ass off at you if you did.

> You're nearer the composition of manure than mushroom
> compost.

You ARE compost, shithead.

>>>>Birds fly over the fields and drop loads indiscriminately.
>>>>Farm workers relieve themselves in the fields as they
>>>>collect the produce.
>
> Etc.
>
>>>You tosser, surely you can do better than this drivel.
>>
>>See above, wanker.
>
> Still drivel.

You lack (a) the intelligence and (b) the information required
to overcome the burden of proof offered. That's not a
compliment -- I got the information from an activist site
rather than a technical one.

>>>>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
>>>>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
>>>>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
>>>>>
>>>>>It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the
>>>>>risk.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit. Raw faddists are at higher than average risk
>>>>of food-borne illness, especially when sprouts are
>>>>consumed.
>>>
>>>THAT does not follow,
>>
>>Which would be "non sequitur," not "ipse dixit."
>>
>>
>>>or "Ipse dixit" as you arrogantly claim.
>>
>>My claim was supported with two links, so I beg to differ
>>that it's ipse
>>dixit.
>>
>>
>>>Raw food has never been mentioned.
>
> It's a red herring.

No, it isn't. It's apropos since your claim is that vegetarian
diets are inherently safer. That is simply not the case.

> READ what I wrote dummy "generally will reduce the risk".

Ipse dixit.

>>Vegetarianism, though, was. Raw faddists comprise a segment
>>of the veg-nism. The issue the OP raised was vegetarianism
>>and food safety. My remark was apropos, dickhead.
>>
>>>READ what I wrote dummy "generally will reduce the risk".
>>
>>I did, you smelly cocksucking racist. And your comment is
>>ipse dixit -- an unsupported assertion (or "so you say"). So
>>where's your evidence?
>
> You'd say something like "Why don't you go back to the old
> country?" Wouldn't you, TexMex?

Non sequitur. Stick to the issue and stop playing the race
card, you filthy bigot.

> Most food borne illness is from meat.
>
> Start with http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html

Note the very first sentences: When it comes to food
poisoning, big outbreaks make headlines.
E. coli in apple juice and alfalfa sprouts. Listeria
in cheese...

Well, pendejo, those are all vegetarian foods. You've
addressed one part of a complex issue, but you haven't exactly
shown that avoiding meat simply reduces one's risks. Even
contaminated meat isn't a cause of disease in humans when its
properly handled and cooked; it's the improper handling (e.g.,
cross-contamination) and undercooking that results in food
poisoning. The SAME is true for vegetables.

>>I see you didn't bother commenting on the following links.
>>You should've read them before making such a big fat ass of
>>yourself.
>>
>>>>http://www.ncpa.org/iss/reg/2003/pd042103f.html
>>>>http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2003/08/13/bz13.htm
>
> It's about raw food, not about the general vegetarian diet
> that we were discussing.

Yes, it is. See the OP's post:
>>>>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
>>>>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
>>>>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.

No go eat your sprouts, pendejo. Make sure you rinse them very
well in your chemically-treated water.

[Zakhar]

"Bill" <BillC@kenstarr.not> wrote in message
news:YGaub.3939$sb4.3793@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> FuckHar, mediocrity, wrote:
>
> > usual suspect <support@our.troops> wrote in message
> > news:IA7ub.63383$Mc.45706@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> >>FuckHar, mediocrity, wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just
> >>>>>>those
received
>
> >>>>Mushrooms are grown in shit.
> >>>
> >>>Not true. It might contain shit, but is not shit.
> >>>http://www.americanmushroom.org/compost.htm
> >>
> >>Composted manure is still *manure* no matter how much
> >>straw or sawdust or other material is added.
> >
> >
> > Compost is compost dummy.
>
> Compost is you, dummy.

Use your own jokes, you dumb dwarf.

[Zakhar]

"TexMex" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:5cbub.64575$Mc.54014@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Zakhar wrote:
> >>>>>>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just
> >>>>>>those
received
> >>>>>>from eating onions. You could say the same thing about
> >>>>>>meat, for instance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally
> >>>>>comes from
the
> >>>>>animal's intestinal tract.
> >>>>
> >>>>There's more shit on vegetables and mushrooms.
> >>>
> >>>Evidence?
> >>
> >> From a food safety advocacy website:
> >>
> >>While it might seem strange that fruit and vegetables
> >>would come in contact with the human and animal feces that
> >>often harbors pathogenic bacteria, there are many routes
> >>by which this can happen. Wild animals whether small, such
> >>as rodents or birds, or large such as deer, can often gain
> >>access to a farm or orchard during the growing season and
> >>can contaminated produce with their feces and even other
> >>animals' feces with which they've come into contact. The
> >>water with which produce comes into contact while growing
> >>should be clean; yet, well water or nearby streams can
> >>become contaminated and rainwater runoff can bring
> >>contamination from land higher up, thereby contaminating
> >>the crops. Lastly, the application of manure from cattle
> >>or poultry can easily introduce pathogens. There are no
> >>federal rules or regulations regarding the use of fresh
> >>manure as a fertilizer for produce. As of February, 1998,
> >>voluntary organic standards for delaying the application
> >>of raw manure recommended not applying it within 60 days
> >>of harvest. Yet, E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella have been
> >>shown to survive for many months in soil.
> >>
> >>The location of the farm or orchard or processing
> >>facilities near other farm animals can also result in
> >>contamination. It is believed that some bacteria can form
> >>spores and be blown in dust onto nearby produce or into
> >>water used for rinsing. Birds, as well, have been know to
> >>carry pathogens such as Campylobacter and E. coli O157:H7,
> >>so proximity can be an issue.
> >>
> >>Harvesting introduces the human element. Unclean hands can
> >>contaminate fresh produce with human pathogens such as
> >>hepatitis
> >>A. Workers can walk through contaminated dirt and climb up
> >> ladders placing their hands on rungs they have just
> >> soiled. Often, workers sit on their picking bags while
> >> taking a break. Baskets are placed on the ground and
> >> can easily get contaminated soil in them. Thus,
> >> previously pristine produce can be subsequently
> >> contaminated during harvest.
> >>
> >>The processing facility itself can be left open to
> >>contamination from dust or animals. Dirt floors can
> >>contribute to the risk of contamination. In the processing
> >>shed, produce can be rinsed with unclean water, whether
> >>contaminated by dust or animals or previous produce
> >>passing through the process. Tools such as filters, knives
> >>or fingernails may not be sterilized between processes or
> >>may left in a place where they can again become
> >>contaminated via dust, nonpotable water or animals. A part
> >>may fall on the floor, be picked up and put back into the
> >>process again without being properly cleaned. Lastly, the
> >>final packaging materials, cartons, etc. can be
> >>contaminated by previous fruit or tainted water, by being
> >>set on contaminated ground tainted by manure, or by being
> >>transported in a vehicle that previously held animals.
> >>http://tinyurl.com/vd0z
> >
> > I asked for evidence. This is just a list of "can this and
> > can that".
>
> Take it up with food safety advocates, pendejo estupido. It
> can and DOES happen. Want me to show you lists of outbreaks
> related to unpasteurized juices, unwashed produce, and other
> vegetarian fare?

I know it happens. Let me remind you:

You wrote:

>>There's more shit on vegetables and mushrooms.

I wrote:

>Evidence?

Let me spell it out. Where's the evidence that there is more
shit on vegetables?

>
> >>>>Mushrooms are grown in shit.
> >>>
> >>>Not true. It might contain shit, but is not shit.
> >>>http://www.americanmushroom.org/compost.htm
> >>
> >>Composted manure is still *manure* no matter how much
> >>straw or sawdust or other material is added.
> >
> > Compost is compost dummy.
>
> Netherlands info... Two formulas are in use now, one for
> horse manure compost and one for synthetic (= straw)
> compost. A tonne of horse manure is supplemented with 100 kg
> of chicken manure and 25 kg of gypsum.
>
> I'll let you do the math and tell me what percentage of that
> is manure.
>
> The amount of water to be added varies from 200–800 l per
> tonne. This results in 900–1300 kg of compost.
>
> In other words, they make a bunch of shit wet.
>
> For synthetic compost preferably wheat or rye straw is used.
> Per tonne 600–900 kg of chicken manure, 75 kg of gypsum and
> about 5000 l of water are added, resulting in 3000 kg of
> compost. The straw is first mixed with 2/3 of the chicken
> manure, watered en gets heated for 7–10 days. The purpose of
> this pretreatment is to make a product similar to horse
> manure as it leaves the stables.
>
> Again, I'll let you do the math. The straw is a fairy inert
> part, at least bioactively. It's the shit that matters.
>
> http://www.actahort.org/books/172/172_27.htm

This is 20 year-old data, that you've incorrectly /
incompletely quoted (lied about):

"The most important basic material is *straw-bedded* manure.
If this is not available in sufficient quantity, *straw
compost* is used."

>
> > It's like me stating it's composted straw.
>
> I would laugh my ass off at you if you did.

Why, it's in the site that YOU quoted, dummy?

>
> > You're nearer the composition of manure than mushroom
> > compost.
>
> You ARE compost, shithead.

Use you own jokes dummy.

>
> >>>>Birds fly over the fields and drop loads
> >>>>indiscriminately. Farm workers relieve themselves in the
> >>>>fields as they collect the produce.
> >
> > Etc.
> >
> >>>You tosser, surely you can do better than this drivel.
> >>
> >>See above, wanker.
> >
> > Still drivel.
>
> You lack (a) the intelligence and (b) the information
> required to overcome the burden of proof offered. That's not
> a compliment -- I got the information from an activist site
> rather than a technical one.

You haven't got any evidence. You got the information
from a non-technical activist site, and expect it to be
used as evidence?

>
> >>>>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
> >>>>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
> >>>>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the
> >>>>>risk.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ipse dixit. Raw faddists are at higher than average risk
> >>>>of food-borne illness, especially when sprouts are
> >>>>consumed.
> >>>
> >>>THAT does not follow,
> >>
> >>Which would be "non sequitur," not "ipse dixit."
> >>
> >>
> >>>or "Ipse dixit" as you arrogantly claim.
> >>
> >>My claim was supported with two links, so I beg to differ
> >>that it's ipse
> >>dixit.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Raw food has never been mentioned.
> >
> > It's a red herring.
>
> No, it isn't. It's apropos since your claim is that
> vegetarian diets are inherently safer. That is simply not
> the case.

Generally they are.

>
> > READ what I wrote dummy "generally will reduce the risk".
>
> Ipse dixit.

Pixie and Dixie.

>
> >>Vegetarianism, though, was. Raw faddists comprise a
> >>segment of the veg-nism. The issue the OP raised was
> >>vegetarianism and food safety. My remark was apropos,
> >>dickhead.
> >>
> >>>READ what I wrote dummy "generally will reduce the risk".
> >>
> >>I did, you smelly cocksucking racist. And your comment is
> >>ipse dixit -- an unsupported assertion (or "so you say").
> >>So where's your evidence?
> >
> > You'd say something like "Why don't you go back to the old
> > country?" Wouldn't you, TexMex?
>
> Non sequitur. Stick to the issue and stop playing the race
> card, you filthy bigot.

You started the race thing, remember?

>
> > Most food borne illness is from meat.
> >
> > Start with http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdcampy.html
>
> Note the very first sentences: When it comes to food
> poisoning, big outbreaks make headlines.
> E. coli in apple juice and alfalfa sprouts. Listeria in
> cheese...

Finshed the first paragraph with:

"But the most frequently diagnosed food-borne bacterium rarely
makes the news. The name of the unsung bug? Campylobacter."

>
> Well, pendejo, those are all vegetarian foods.

That the second unethical use of a cited reference you've done
today, to my knowledge. Still, you always copied ~~jonnies~~
shitty style. Come to think of it, are you ~~jonnie~~?

>You've addressed one part of a complex issue, but you haven't
>exactly shown that avoiding meat simply reduces one's risks.
>Even contaminated meat isn't a cause of disease in humans
>when its properly handled and cooked; it's the improper
>handling (e.g., cross-contamination) and undercooking that
>results in food poisoning. The SAME is true for vegetables.

Meat is part of the animal being eaten as much as the shit
that spills out of its intestines during "processing". It's an
intrinsic part of the food.

>
> >>I see you didn't bother commenting on the following links.
> >>You should've read them before making such a big fat ass
> >>of yourself.
> >>
> >>>>http://www.ncpa.org/iss/reg/2003/pd042103f.html
> >>>>http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2003/08/13/bz13.htm
> >
> > It's about raw food, not about the general vegetarian diet
> > that we were discussing.
>
> Yes, it is. See the OP's post:

Nothing about raw food there tex.

> >>>>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
> >>>>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
> >>>>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
>
> No go eat your sprouts, pendejo. Make sure you rinse them
> very well in your chemically-treated water.

I don't eat sprouts (or bean sprouts). As far as I know my
water isn't chemically treated, as it comes from a deep
underground aquifer.

[Default Us]

Jeff wrote:

> I think very important. The green onions themselves are
> healthy. For example, there is no need to avoid eating green
> onions you grow yourself.

Can I avoid eating them because they taste nasty?

Brian Rodenborn

[Richard Pe]

Reg wrote:
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> I think very important. The green onions themselves are
>> healthy. For example, there is no need to avoid eating
>> green onions you grow yourself.
>
>
> Green onions can carry food poisoning if improperly handled,
> even if you grew them yourself.
>

What the hell are you talking about? Geez, people read a
little bit about something, and they consider themselves
authorities on something they know nothing about.

Green onions, like any other vegetable, is free from
pathogenic organisms (unless night soil is used with humans
harboring parasites, et cetera, or other contaminated
fertilizer is used.) Now after it's picked, someone with a
parasitic/viral/bacterial disease can contaminate the product,
which is sometimes eaten raw.

It is recommended that raw vegetables be simmered in hot water
for about one minute. This usually takes care of most
pathogens, and will not significantly alter the vegetable's
appearance.

Richard

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with
some fava beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

[Robert]

"ravinwulf" <ravnwulf@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pfcub.1366$ow5.743@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Ray wrote:
> > "Dimitri" <Dimitri_C@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:UX6ub.25640$5a2.1980@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>"jitney" <jtnospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:b8002be7.0311170622.19151e90@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >>>Another benefit of unrestricted illegal immigration. Even
> >>>though a majority of Americans want it controlled, our
> >>>political system will not fix it because Republicans want
> >>>cheap labor for their big business buddies and Democrats
> >>>want illegal immigrants to stuff the ballot boxes with
> >>>their purchased votes.-Jitney
> >>
> >>Sure, it's a right wing conspiracy to reduce the working
> >>class people
who
> >>frequent the Beaver Valley Mall,
> >
> > Can you guys please cut all this racist talk.
>
> Spare us the oversensitivity and political correctness.
> There was no mention of race in either of the above posts,
> only illegal immigration.
>
> Regards, ravinwulf
>

Show me where the CDC, which is investigating, mentions
illegal immigration? There has been out-breaks caused by
imported food products from other countries and I think the
Homeland Security Office should arrest those illegal onions.
Immigration, both illegal and legal have built this country
and continues to benefit today. If you can't compete with an
illegal person who can not even speak English then you don't
deserve a job. Communism is gone, that's where you can get a
government guaranteed job based on your political views.
Unless government wants to enforce affirmative action
programs, which it doesn't because it would make minorities
feel inferior, what makes you think it will give you a job an
illegal has. You guys are so worried about immigration now
after you killed off all the Indians and took their land. You
guys take half of Mexico and then wonder why where all these
Mexicans come from. I don't under estimate the resolve of the
American people, you guys nuked Japan, it usually is pretty
evident. With all the benefits granted to immigrants, the will
of the American people has spoken. You guys need cheap labor
and are willing to allow illegals access to birth centers, ID
cards, and everything else they need. You will not send your
children out to the fields. They are not qualified.

[Reg]

Richard Periut wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>> Green onions can carry food poisoning if improperly
>> handled, even if you grew them yourself.
>>
>
> What the hell are you talking about? Geez, people read a
> little bit about something, and they consider themselves
> authorities on something they know nothing about.
>

That's a pretty non-sequitur response. Care to explain how it
relates to anything that I said?

I guess you're saying green onions can't be a source of
food borne illness. The folks who ate at Chi-Chi's would
probably disagree.

> It is recommended that raw vegetables be simmered in hot
> water for about one minute. This usually takes care of most
> pathogens, and will not significantly alter the vegetable's
> appearance.

Right. I blanch all my vegetables before I put them in my
salad. Lettuce is particularly good that way.

I suspect a good amount of the emotional reactions on this
subject are from vegetarian types who like to believe that
only meat products carry a risk of food poisoning. Sorry to
burst your collective bubble, but it ain't so.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

[Richard Pe]

Reg wrote:
>
>
> Richard Periut wrote:
>
>> Reg wrote:
>>
>>> Green onions can carry food poisoning if improperly
>>> handled, even if you grew them yourself.
>>>
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about? Geez, people read a
>> little bit about something, and they consider themselves
>> authorities on something they know nothing about.
>>
>
> That's a pretty non-sequitur response. Care to explain how
> it relates to anything that I said?

Yes. "Green onions carry food poisoning if improperly handled,
even if you grew them yourself."

Can you explain how that phenomenom occurs? Cause only if what
I explained happens, it does not!

>
> I guess you're saying green onions can't be a source of food
> borne illness. The folks who ate at Chi-Chi's would probably
> disagree.

Yes, someone or some people contaminated the food. They don't
"grow" with the condition to cause food poisoing. Do you even
understand the various types of syndromes associated with food
poisoning?

>
>> It is recommended that raw vegetables be simmered in hot
>> water for about one minute. This usually takes care of most
>> pathogens, and will not significantly alter the vegetable's
>> appearance.
>
>
> Right. I blanch all my vegetables before I put them in my
> salad. Lettuce is particularly good that way.
>
> I suspect a good amount of the emotional reactions on this
> subject are from vegetarian types who like to believe that
> only meat products carry a risk of food poisoning. Sorry to
> burst your collective bubble, but it ain't so.
>

Well I'm not a vegetarian, but one who does recognize dung
when I read it.

Richard

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with
some fava beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

[C. James S]

"Bill" <BillC@kenstarr.not> wrote in message
news:Rb6ub.3736$sb4.2666@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Zakhar wrote:
>
> > "Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:nz5ub.26045$OG5.15993@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>Zakhar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Reg" <reg@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:le5ub.26042$tz5.21280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >>>>And how is that an important distinction?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Because ignorant people will believe that onions are
> >>>dangerous, when
> >
> > it's
> >
> >>>the human shit on the onions that is dangerous.
> >>
> >>That would apply to all food borne illnesses, not just
> >>those received from eating onions. You could say the same
> >>thing about meat, for instance.
> >
> >
> > Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally
> > comes from the animal's intestinal tract.
> >
> >
> >>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
> >>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
> >>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
> >
> >
> > It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.
>
> You have no basis for concluding that, FuckHar, you greasy
> little prick, except your bigoted semi-"vegan" religious
> beliefs.

There goes the neighborhood....

[Reg]

Richard Periut wrote:

> Yes. "Green onions carry food poisoning if improperly
> handled, even if you grew them yourself."
>
> Can you explain how that phenomenom occurs? Cause only if
> what I explained happens, it does not!

Well skipper, to start off you deleted part of my statement.
It was "Green CAN onions carry food poisoning if improperly
handled". Why would you try to distort what I said?

OK, you want a scenario (in addition to the Chi-Chi's case, of
course). Somebody decides they want to create an oil infusion
using green onions. They put their onions in a bottle of olive
oil, leave it around for awhile at room temperature and end up
with a bottle full of botulism toxin.

So ya see Mr crypto-vegan, my assertion stands. Green onions
(or *any* food product for that matter), if improperly
handled, can carry food poisoning. It can, but does not
necessarily have to, come from human contact with the food
item in question.

> Yes, someone or some people contaminated the food. They
> don't "grow" with the condition to cause food poisoing.

Wrong again! Your assertion that the pathogen vector must be a
human being is dead wrong. An example would be a botulism case
from the midwest where a restaurant left some foil wrapped
baked potatoes out at room temperature too long. The foil
wrapping excluded oxygen just enough to allow botulism to grow
and it resulted in a documented case of food poisoning. Check
the CDC archives and read all about it. It'll be a good
learning experience for you.

> Do you even understand the various types of syndromes
> associated with food poisoning?

Yes, and I'm happy to help you learn about this important
subject matter.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:18:38 -0500, "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>It is quite possible that whatever was contaminated was
>contaminated before it reached the restaurant.

I think it is far more possible that the cook while cutting it
up, infected it all with his poo on his fingers.

[Bob Pastor]

Alf Christophersen wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:18:38 -0500, "Jeff"
> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>=20 20
>>It is quite possible that whatever was contaminated was
>>contaminated be=
fore
>>it reached the restaurant.
>=20 20
> I think it is far more possible that the cook while cutting
> it up, infected it all with his poo on his fingers.

the only problem with that theory is that it doesn't take into
account=20 the other cases traced to green onions.

http://forums.chef2chef.net/showflat.php?Cat=3D&Board=3Dsafet-
y&Number=3D8= 4529

Consumers Advised That Recent Hepatitis A Outbreaks Have
Been=20 Associated With Green Onions

The Food and Drug Administration is advising the public that
several=20 recent hepatitis A outbreaks have been associated
with eating raw or=20 undercooked green onions (scallions).
Hepatitis A is a liver disease=20 that develops within 6 weeks
of an exposure. Hepatitis A is usually=20 mild and
characterized by jaundice (yellow discoloration of the
skin),=20 fatigue, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, nausea,
diarrhea, and=20 fever. It can occasionally be severe,
especially in people with liver=20 disease.

Hepatitis A outbreaks associated with raw or undercooked green
onions=20 served in restaurants occurred in Tennessee, North
Carolina and=20 Georgia in September. Another outbreak of
hepatitis A among patrons of=20 a single restaurant occurred
in Pennsylvania during late October and=20 early November,
although the source of the outbreak has not yet been=20
determined. FDA, CDC, and the State of Pennsylvania have an=20
investigation underway to determine if a specific food is
associated=20 with the Pennsylvania outbreak, and if so, the
source. The source of=20 the green onions in the Tennessee
outbreak appears to be Mexico. FDA=20 is continuing to
investigate these outbreaks and has been in=20 consultation
with Mexican authorities to obtain their assistance in=20
assessing the situation.

FDA offers the following advice to consumers concerned about
the=20 possibility of getting hepatitis A from green onions:

Cook green onions thoroughly. This minimizes the risk of
illness by=20 reducing or eliminating the virus. Cook in a
casserole or saut=E9 in a=20 skillet.

Check food purchased at restaurants and delicatessens and ask
whether=20 menu items contain raw or lightly cooked green
onions. Consumers who=20 wish to avoid food that contains raw
or lightly cooked green onions=20 should specifically request
that raw or lightly cooked green onions=20 not be added to
their food. Foods such as freshly prepared salsa and=20 green
salads often contain raw green onions. FDA, CDC and the States
are actively investigating the outbreaks in an=20 attempt to
determine the source of the green onions associated with=20
the outbreaks and how they became contaminated, so that
corrective=20 action can be taken.

While the investigations are ongoing, FDA will closely monitor
the=20 safety of green onions and will take further actions as
necessary to=20 protect consumers. Consumers who have recently
eaten raw or lightly=20 cooked green onions do not need to
take any specific measures, but=20 should monitor their
health. Consumers who are experiencing symptoms=20 that could
be hepatitis A should consult their health care providers=20
or the local health department.

###

Pastorio

[Ray]

"Peter" <offtheroad@fixitup.dot> wrote in message
news:7wcub.4036$sb4.3777@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ravinwulf wrote:
>
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> >> "Dimitri" <Dimitri_C@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> >> news:UX6ub.25640$5a2.1980@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >>> "jitney" <jtnospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:b8002be7.0311170622.19151e90@posting.google.com...
> >>>
>
>
> Racist Ray Slater was only making a leaden joke. He's the
> ultimate bigot, regularly and frequently calling posters
> "nigger", "kike", "gook" and so on.

Ok Peter,

Bit of a joke, but I've never called anyone a "Kike" or a
"Nigger", "Gook certainly and don't forget the 'Nips'. But I
always qualify my postings by saying never judge a person by
his colour, judge him by the way he acts. Obviously this is a
US internal posting, but there is much talk of illegall
immigration. Where do your immigrants originate? We have a
immigration problem in the UK, but they do not take our jobs,
they are not here to work, just to scrounge off the social
security system and turn the UK into a Muslim state.

That's not racist it's realist.

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:53:27 -0000, "Zakhar"
<nospam@donotuse123.com> wrote:

>Yes, very true. There's shit on meat too, that normally comes
>from the animal's intestinal tract.

The meat has never been in contact with that, unless the cook
or slaughter did cut through the intestinal tract with his
knife and used the same knife unwashed for cutting the meat.
That happens :-(

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:54:11 GMT, Bill
<BillC@kenstarr.not> wrote:

>Exactly right, and exactly the point that FuckHar, the
>incoherent semi-"vegan", deliberately ignores.

Wonder why preservated vegetables are the most risky thing to
eat when it comes to botulism??

It's befause soil and dirt infect them with almost 100%
certainty with
C. botulinum spores. Just ask in rec.food.preserving

[Usual Susp]

Ray wrote:
> Bit of a joke, but I've never called anyone a "Kike" or a
> "Nigger", "Gook certainly and don't forget the 'Nips'.

We won't.

> But I always qualify my postings by saying never judge a
> person by his colour, judge him by the way he acts.

Then why do you say "most" Asians are bad?

> Obviously this is a US internal posting, but there is much
> talk of illegall immigration. Where do your immigrants
> originate?

Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal immigrants
from all over the world.

> We have a immigration problem in the UK, but they do not
> take our jobs, they are not here to work, just to scrounge
> off the social security system and turn the UK into a
> Muslim state.

It's the "religion of peace."

/sarcasm

> That's not racist it's realist.

I agree with you on that. What's the use in having laws if
they're not enforced? And what's the use in letting in people
who don't or won't work? It costs less to feed and house them
in their countries of origin.

[Zakhar]

"Alf Christophersen" <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no>
wrote in message
news:22mirvgp1hgtud7s9tmotmbsv6vhcs1lel@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:54:11 GMT, Bill
> <BillC@kenstarr.not> wrote:
>
> >Exactly right, and exactly the point that FuckHar, the
> >incoherent semi-"vegan", deliberately ignores.
>
> Wonder why preservated vegetables are the most risky thing
> to eat when it comes to botulism??
>
> It's befause soil and dirt infect them with almost 100%
> certainty with
> C. botulinum spores. Just ask in rec.food.preserving

Damaged tins.

[Robert]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:7Rvub.1308$do1.1195@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Ray wrote:
> > Bit of a joke, but I've never called anyone a "Kike" or a
> > "Nigger",
"Gook
> > certainly and don't forget the 'Nips'.
>
> We won't.
>
> > But I always qualify my postings by saying never judge a
> > person by his colour, judge him by the way he acts.
>
> Then why do you say "most" Asians are bad?
>
> > Obviously this is a US internal posting, but there is much
> > talk of
illegall
> > immigration. Where do your immigrants originate?
>
> Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal
> immigrants from all over the world.

That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the continenent
of North America, Central America and South America, which we
shorten it to us Americans. Give us your unwanted, poor etc.
>
> > We have a immigration problem in the UK, but they do not
> > take our jobs, they are not here to
work,
> > just to scrounge off the social security system and turn
> > the UK into a Muslim state.
>
> It's the "religion of peace."
>
> /sarcasm
>
> > That's not racist it's realist.
>
> I agree with you on that. What's the use in having laws if
> they're not enforced? And what's the use in letting in
> people who don't or won't work? It costs less to feed and
> house them in their countries of origin.

Then it is OK for people to work and take jobs away from
citizens so that arguement is gone. The jobs should go to the
most qualified. Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids
per family and with the baby boomers going on to retirement,
then we don't have enough people to cover their care. We need
a large working force to pay for the care and Social Security.
The only way to do is through immigration. The economics will
cover themselves as if people can't work then the government
will cut back on benefits and money. What the UK is saying is
that because you are a UK citizen then you have a right to
free money in our socialist system. The immigrant has the
advantage as they come from countries where they have no
government programs giving people money so they have learned
to do without and with very little help compared to home grown
citizens. There is no communist system in their country of
origin usually. You work you get to eat and if you don't then
you don't eat. I would hope that this reward system would be
strived for instead of complaining that people are taking
Welfare money. You will never see a person on Welfare go work
in the fields. Instead they complain about foreigners taking
benefits and jobs. As far as taking the UK into a muslin
state, what kind of state are you now with the Catholics
killing the Protestants. It reminds me of the Alamo heroes
that gained Texas their independance from the dictator of
Mexico. One of the arguements was that Mexico did not allow
religious freedom. Once they gained their independence they
put the black man in chains, instituted slavery and proclaimed
Texas a free state.

[Arri Londo]

Zakhar wrote:
>
> "Alf Christophersen" <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no>
> wrote in message
> news:22mirvgp1hgtud7s9tmotmbsv6vhcs1lel@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:54:11 GMT, Bill
> > <BillC@kenstarr.not> wrote:
> >
> > >Exactly right, and exactly the point that FuckHar, the
> > >incoherent semi-"vegan", deliberately ignores.
> >
> > Wonder why preservated vegetables are the most risky thing
> > to eat when it comes to botulism??
> >
> > It's befause soil and dirt infect them with almost 100%
> > certainty with
> > C. botulinum spores. Just ask in rec.food.preserving
>
> Damaged tins.
>
> >

Nothing to do with damaged tins. The spores of C botulinum
(and its relatives) are common in soils. Unless fruits and
vegetables are very carefully washed, scraped and dunked in
chlorine bleach for ages etc, those spores *will* be in tinned
foods. However, careful heating procedures (reaching the right
temp for the right amount of time) during canning will either
inactivate the spores or prevent them from germinating.
Because they are obligate anaerobes, the presence of oxygen
which could result from a damaged can (as in a pinhole or
crack) would most likely not encourage them to germinate.
However a poorly-prepared sealed container would be an ideal
environment for them to germinate. That's why tinned fruits,
vegetables and sometimes meats/fish present a higher risk for
botulism than fresh.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.med.nutrition usual suspect <support@our.troops> wrote
or quoted:
> Tim Tyler wrote:

>>>>>There's a message here though. I hear a lot of people
>>>>>espousing vegetarian diets because they think it will
>>>>>protect them from food poisoning. Not true.
>>>>
>>>>It won't protect them, but generally will reduce the risk.
>>>
>>>You have no basis for concluding that, FuckHar, you greasy
>>>little prick, except your bigoted semi-"vegan" religious
>>>beliefs.
>>
>> Of course it is quite accurate.
>
> Actually, it isn't.

Actually the most common source of food poisoning in the USA
is seafood. The second most common source is eating eggs.

Avoiding animal produce does indeed offer substantial level of
protection.

``Beef, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy foods and eggs are
especially susceptible to contamination with disease-causing
bacteria. Two major factors contribute to the food-borne
illness problem: food production and slaughter methods, and
improper handling. Although and meat processing plants are
periodically inspected by the USDA, a microbial or chemical
contamination cannot always be detected by sight, which is the
current inspection method. What’s more, the tremendous problem
of fecal contamination, a predominant cause of food poisoning,
can result from factory methods of slaughter."''

- http://www.healthfullivingintl.com/eNewsletters/enews34.ht-
ml
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove
lock to reply.

[Richard Pe]

Reg wrote:
> Richard Periut wrote:
>
>> Yes. "Green onions carry food poisoning if improperly
>> handled, even if you grew them yourself."
>>
>> Can you explain how that phenomenom occurs? Cause only if
>> what I explained happens, it does not!
>
>
> Well skipper, to start off you deleted part of my statement.
> It was "Green CAN onions carry food poisoning if improperly
> handled". Why would you try to distort what I said?

That's not what the subject line states; but I'll agree that
any canned food item if not properly processed and handled can
cause food poisoning.

>
> OK, you want a scenario (in addition to the Chi-Chi's case,
> of course). Somebody decides they want to create an oil
> infusion using green onions. They put their onions in a
> bottle of olive oil, leave it around for awhile at room
> temperature and end up with a bottle full of botulism toxin.
>

You have no clue to what you are talking about. The type of
food poisoning associated with botulism a syndrome at the
neurological level. Oil "standing" for a while will cause the
spore to germinate that quickly. Do a search on google and
realize what nonsense you are talking.

> So ya see Mr crypto-vegan, my assertion stands. Green onions
> (or *any* food product for that matter), if improperly
> handled, can carry food poisoning. It can, but does not
> necessarily have to, come from human contact with the food
> item in question.
>
>> Yes, someone or some people contaminated the food. They
>> don't "grow" with the condition to cause food poisoing.
>
>
> Wrong again! Your assertion that the pathogen vector must be
> a human being is dead wrong.

You have a habit of misquoting me. I never said it must be a
human. Perhaps if I word it different you may catch the drift:

Green onions by themselves need to be contaminated by some
person, animal, or thing. Clear? An example would be a
botulism case from the midwest
> where a restaurant left some foil wrapped baked potatoes out
> at room temperature too long. The foil wrapping excluded
> oxygen just enough to allow botulism to grow and it resulted
> in a documented case of food poisoning.

Guy, PLEASE get a friggin book on microbiology and stop
babbling. You need warmth, anaerobic conditions, and spores,
for the aforementioned to happen. A potato wrapped in foil for
a couple of hours wont cut it. The cases usually involve thick
viscous foods (stews, soups, et cetera,) which can totally
seal the spores in an anaerobic milleau, warmth for several
hours, and usually involving root veggies et cetera which are
contaminated with the spores.

Check the CDC archives and read all about it. It'll be a good
> learning experience for you.
>

I already have, and am credentialed by the ABIM. www.abim.org
,look me up.

>> Do you even understand the various types of syndromes
>> associated with food poisoning?
>
>
> Yes, and I'm happy to help you learn about this important
> subject matter.
>

Based on your answer, I doubt you even understand the
question.

Richard Periut

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with
some fava beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

[Usual Susp]

Robert ranted:

>>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal
>>immigrants from all over the world.
>
> That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the
> continenent of North America, Central America and South
> America, which we shorten it to us Americans.

Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do
people south of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on
Central or South America, and most of North America is
comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.

> Give us your unwanted, poor etc.

No, please don't. Give us your industrious and wise instead.

>>>We have a immigration problem in the UK, but they do not
>>>take our jobs, they are not here to
> work,
>>>just to scrounge off the social security system and turn
>>>the UK into a Muslim state.
>>
>>It's the "religion of peace."
>>
>>/sarcasm
>>
>>
>>>That's not racist it's realist.
>>
>>I agree with you on that. What's the use in having laws if
>>they're not enforced? And what's the use in letting in
>>people who don't or won't work? It costs less to feed and
>>house them in their countries of origin.
>
> Then it is OK for people to work and take jobs away from
> citizens so that arguement is gone.

No, I didn't say that.

> The jobs should go to the most qualified.

They usually do, sparky.

> Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and
> with the baby boomers going on to retirement, then we don't
> have enough people to cover their care.

Yes, and we should abolish Ponzi schemes like Social Security
and Medicare immediately so they'll still have time to stash
some money in their 401(k)s and IRAs.

> We need a large working force to pay for the care and Social
> Security.

FU. We don't need Social Security. Or "the care," whatever the
hell that is.

> The only way to do is through immigration.

No, there are other ways that make a lot more sense --
especially with so many unassimilated immigrants here already.

> The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work
> then the government will cut back on benefits and money.

What are you smoking, Bob?

> What the UK is saying is that because you are a UK citizen
> then you have a right to free money in our socialist system.

I don't think that was ever the intention of the UK scheme,
just one of the unintended results of government programs
gone awry.

> The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries
> where they have no government programs giving people money
> so they have learned to do without and with very little help
> compared to home grown citizens.

How the hell is that an "advantage"?

> There is no communist system in their country of origin
> usually.

Irrelevant. The issue isn't communism or socialism, per se.
You're forgetting how much foreign aid and private relief
benefits third-world slackers.

> You work you get to eat and if you don't then you don't eat.

Not always. In fact, rarely.

> I would hope that this reward system would be strived for
> instead of complaining that people are taking Welfare money.

What reward system are you prating about now?

> You will never see a person on Welfare go work in the
> fields.

Why should they? You already give them money not to work.
Suppose your giving someone $300 a week not to work right now
and he's offered a job at $400 a week. In effect, he's only
being offered $100 a week to work. Would YOU leave YOUR home
every morning and work forty hours for $100?

Most people on welfare have that kind of incentive NOT to
work. You'll get people out in the fields and off welfare when
you stop giving them welfare in the first place.

> Instead they complain about foreigners taking benefits
> and jobs.

I don't know where you live, but illegal immigrants are
causing a lot of problems down here along the border. We have
to educate their children, we have to provide medical care,
and we house and clothe and feed them. That eats into state
and local budgets for EVERY program designed to benefit people
who are here *legally*.

The fastest way to get California's budget balanced would be
to send illegals back home when they're caught. In fact,
they'd have a big ass surplus.

> As far as taking the UK into a muslin state, what kind of
> state are you now with the Catholics killing the
> Protestants.

That's in Northern Ireland. Catholics and Protestants seem to
get along quite well in the rest of the UK.

> It reminds me of the Alamo heroes that gained Texas their
> independance from the dictator of Mexico. One of the
> arguements was that Mexico did not allow religious
> freedom. Once they gained their independence they put the
> black man in chains, instituted slavery and proclaimed
> Texas a free state.

You clearly don't know much about history. I'm most pissed off
about your claim that Texas was declared a free state, though
that's not your only flaw. Just remember, Texas was declared a
FREE *REPUBLIC*.

[Reg]

Richard Periut wrote:

Garlic in oil, when mishandled, can indeed result in botulism
poisoning. Baked potatoes wrapped in foil, when mishandled,
can also result in botulism poisoning.

First you say garlic in oil can't:

> You have no clue to what you are talking about. The type of
> food poisoning associated with botulism a syndrome at the
> neurological level. Oil "standing" for a while will cause
> the spore to germinate that quickly. Do a search on google
> and realize what nonsense you are talking.

Then you say baked potatoes wrapped in foil can't:

> Guy, PLEASE get a friggin book on microbiology and stop
> babbling. You need warmth, anaerobic conditions, and spores,
> for the aforementioned to happen. A potato wrapped in foil
> for a couple of hours wont cut it. The cases usually involve
> thick viscous foods (stews, soups, et cetera,) which can
> totally seal the spores in an anaerobic milleau, warmth for
> several hours, and usually involving root veggies et cetera
> which are contaminated with the spores.

You're wrong on both counts. Try a little reading.

From the Centers for Disease Control page on botulism:

Vehicles of transmission have included homemade salsa,
BAKED POTATOES COOKED IN ALUMINUM FOIL, cheese sauce,
GARLIC IN OIL, and traditionally prepared salted or
fermented fish in Alaska.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/botulism_t.htm

There's lots more on the CDC site on the subject, including
case studies. If you're really interested in the subject I
suggest you read it.

> and am credentialed by the ABIM. www.abim.org ,look me up.

Congrats. You're living proof of how many doctors are woefully
uninformed on the subject of food and nutrition.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

[Richard Pe]

Reg wrote:
> Richard Periut wrote:
>
> Garlic in oil, when mishandled, can indeed result in
> botulism poisoning. Baked potatoes wrapped in foil, when
> mishandled, can also result in botulism poisoning.
>

Now you are changing your tune a bit. It went from someone
infusing olive oil with green onions, and voila, you have
botulin toxin. It's not that way, or should you be more
specific: someone carelessly put some green onions, without
washing them, in some garlic oil, and let it rest in a warm
place overnight or for several hours, et cetera.

The way you referred to it can be very misleading.

> First you say garlic in oil can't:
>
>> You have no clue to what you are talking about. The type of
>> food poisoning associated with botulism a syndrome at the
>> neurological level. Oil "standing" for a while will cause
>> the spore to germinate that quickly. Do a search on google
>> and realize what nonsense you are talking.
>
>
> Then you say baked potatoes wrapped in foil can't:

See aforementioned explanation, but replace oil and onions
with potatoes.

>
>> Guy, PLEASE get a friggin book on microbiology and stop
>> babbling. You need warmth, anaerobic conditions, and
>> spores, for the aforementioned to happen. A potato wrapped
>> in foil for a couple of hours wont cut
>> it. The cases usually involve thick viscous foods (stews,
>> soups, et cetera,) which can totally seal the spores in
>> an anaerobic milleau, warmth for several hours, and
>> usually involving root veggies et cetera which are
>> contaminated with the spores.
>
>
> You're wrong on both counts. Try a little reading.

<sigh> I'm not going to be redundant with you.

>
> From the Centers for Disease Control page on botulism:
>
> Vehicles of transmission have included homemade salsa,
> BAKED POTATOES COOKED IN ALUMINUM FOIL, cheese sauce,
> GARLIC IN OIL, and traditionally prepared salted or
> fermented fish in Alaska.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/botulism_t.htm
>
> There's lots more on the CDC site on the subject, including
> case studies. If you're really interested in the subject I
> suggest you read it.
>
>> and am credentialed by the ABIM. www.abim.org ,look me up.
>
>
> Congrats. You're living proof of how many doctors are
> woefully uninformed on the subject of food and nutrition.
>

No my friend; your living proof that the average layman, can
take a bit of information from a medical site or book, and
turn it into misinformation for the rest.

You have to be clear when you make such a statement. Again,
let me process this as clear as possible: for botulin toxin to
form, you need the contaminated food item (onions, potatoes,
most things in contact with soil that harbor the ubiquitous
clostridia,) then it needs to be on the humid side, an
anaerobic environment (i.e., very low or no O2 at all,) and
finally TIME. Notice how the CDC specifically instructs its
readers that foods should be served hot, or refrigerated
immediately. Most people would tend to keep foods in a warm
place, in anticipation of eating it or serving it later. This
may contribute to the formation of such toxin if other
conditions are met.

Your blanket statement needs refinement. It's like saying
smoking cigarettes causes cancer. That is not true. That
smoking cigarettes is the major factor in 90% of cases of lung
cancer is true, but it's not the only factor; genes, other
environmental factors, nutrition, et cetera, also play roles.
The proof of this is the many heavy smokers that live into
their 80's and 90's and die of other diseases.

Never speak in black or white, but rather, in shades of gray.

Richard

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with
some fava beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

[Jitney]

Then it is OK for people to work and take jobs away from
citizens so that arguement is gone. The jobs should go to the
most qualified. Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids
per family and with the baby boomers going on to retirement,
then we don't have enough people to cover their care. We need
a large working force to pay for the care and Social Security.
The only way to do is through immigration. The economics will
cover themselves as if people can't work then the government
will cut back on benefits and money. What the UK is saying is
that because you are a UK citizen then you have a right to
free money in our socialist system. The immigrant has the
advantage as they come from countries where they have no
government programs giving people money so they have learned
to do without and with very little help compared to home grown
citizens. There is no communist system in their country of
origin usually. You work you get to eat and if you don't then
you don't eat. I would hope that this reward system would be
strived for instead of complaining that people are taking
Welfare money.(snip)

I said unresricted ILLEGAL immigration, not immigration per
se. Learn how to read. And were those Christians who flew the
jets into the twin towers? And did Egyptians bring us the West
Nile Virus? If so, you would never hear it from our
politically correct CDC.-Jitney

[Robert]

"jitney" <jtnospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8002be7.0311192200.1a4018ba@posting.google.com...
> Then it is OK for people to work and take jobs away from
> citizens so that arguement is gone. The jobs should go to
> the most qualified. Lets talk realism here, when we have 2
> kids per family and with the baby boomers going on to
> retirement, then we don't have enough people to cover their
> care. We need a large working force to pay for the care and
> Social Security. The only way to do is through immigration.
> The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work
> then the government will cut back on benefits and money.
> What the UK is saying is that because you are a UK citizen
> then you have a right to free money in our socialist system.
> The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries
> where they have no government programs giving people money
> so they have learned to do without and with very little help
> compared to home grown citizens. There is no communist
> system in their country of origin usually. You work you get
> to eat and if you don't then you don't eat. I would hope
> that this reward system would be strived for instead of
> complaining that people are taking Welfare money.(snip)
>
> I said unresricted ILLEGAL immigration, not immigration per
> se. Learn how to read.
We have essentially unrestricted illegal immigration with
amnesties granted after so many years. What are you talking
about? It is designed that way and the way you want it has
never existed and will never be put into place even with
oppossing priorities such as security risks.

And were those Christians who flew the jets into the twin
> towers?
I thought those were Ronald Reagan Freedom fighters trained by
us. The Christians are the ones who blew up Oklahoma buildings
trained in the Army by us and the Anthrax deaths was a home
grown strain from a secure Army base. I never though muslims
had a hatred for Democrats as they were the intended targets.

And did Egyptians bring us the West Nile Virus? If so, you
> would never hear it from our politically correct CDC.-Jitney

The CDC comes up with policies to prevent disease. If you are
in a farm field and have to take a shit and the farmer doesn't
want to spend money on placing any toilets then whose fault is
that? If you built it he will come. You want to blame
everything on immigrants which really places a racist tone to
it when you really brake it down and look at it.

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:58:57 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:

>Clostridia Spores in food (especially meat)
After being in contact with soil.

Another risky thing with clostridia are all kind of things
growing in soil or who regularly get in touch with soil (from
rain splashing soil onto them eg.)

(Clostridium botulinum is an anaerobic bacteria mostly found
in soil, especially in oxygen-free mud, but spores is found
everywhere in all kind of soil, germinating if the soil is
wettened and become oxygen free. When the living bacteria
again are gradually exposed to oxygen, they quickly start to
form spores again.

[Robert]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:rkxub.1355$do1.571@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Robert ranted:
>
> >>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal
> >>immigrants from all over the world.
> >
> > That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the
> > continenent of North America, Central America and South
> > America, which we shorten it to us Americans.
>
> Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do
> people south of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on
> Central or South America, and most of North America is
> comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.

Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said
exactly that. It has the right to do what ever it wants in
the Americas.

>
> > Give us your unwanted, poor etc.
>
> No, please don't. Give us your industrious and wise instead.

Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had
$100,000 at hand for Canadian citizenship right after the
turnover to China.
> > Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and
> > with the baby boomers going on to retirement, then we
> > don't have enough people to
cover
> > their care.
>
> Yes, and we should abolish Ponzi schemes like Social
> Security and Medicare immediately so they'll still have time
> to stash some money in their 401(k)s and IRAs.

Any system you come up with is dependant on the young who are
working. It's a pyrimide where you need productive growth. No
growth and productivity results in great loses and the old
dependent on 401's goes down the tube.
>
> > We need a large working force to pay for the care and
> > Social Security.
>
> FU. We don't need Social Security. Or "the care," whatever
> the hell that
is.

Take a class in economics dude. You need need a young working
class that keeps cost down and immigration does the trick.
Without them the price of production becomes too high and you
will see more jobs leave this country where foreign workers
get paid $2.00 an hour. This is a world economy with free
trade and all.
>
> > The only way to do is through immigration.
>
> No, there are other ways that make a lot more sense --
> especially with so many unassimilated immigrants here
> already.
>
> > The economics will cover themselves as if people can't
> > work then the government will cut back on benefits and
> > money.
>
> What are you smoking, Bob?
>
> > The immigrant has the advantage as they come from
> > countries where they
have
> > no government programs giving people money so they have
> > learned to do without and with very little help compared
> > to home grown citizens.
>
> How the hell is that an "advantage"?

They get paid less and the job stays here plus the work they
do can not be done by these people who are spoiled as
citizens here are.
>
> > There is no communist system in their country of origin
> > usually.
>
> Irrelevant. The issue isn't communism or socialism, per se.
> You're forgetting how much foreign aid and private relief
> benefits third-world slackers.

Foreign aid my friend is payoffs to corrupt leaders. It never
gets to the people nor does the US care where it goes as long
as it can buys influence. Iraq is a good example. How much aid
did we give the Phillipines with Marcos during those years and
all it got was shoes for Imelda Marcoes. Every time we want to
go to war we offer aid for bases like Turkey remember. Give us
bases and get aid or don't give us bases and no aid. Going to
the people? Boy are you naive.
> > You will never see a person on Welfare go work in the
> > fields. Instead they complain about foreigners taking
> > benefits and jobs.
>
> I don't know where you live, but illegal immigrants are
> causing a lot of problems down here along the border. We
> have to educate their children, we have to provide medical
> care, and we house and clothe and feed them. That eats into
> state and local budgets for EVERY program designed to
> benefit people who are here *legally*.

All children are educated and we start ESL special ed programs
aimed primarily for illegals. Everyone knows this. Medical
care, we don't want infectious diseases spread and we want to
encourage illegals in coming here so we provide free child
prenatal care so they can have babies here. Most of these
people are working the money goes into the federal withholding
that they never see again. All these programs are here to help
the illegals as they always have a "don't ask don't tell"
policy concerning legal status. If a police officer finds an
illegal he does not call the border patrol, why? Why not
investigate people before benefits are given out and it's the
same answer.
>
> The fastest way to get California's budget balanced would be
> to send illegals back home when they're caught. In fact,
> they'd have a big ass surplus.

All that is rhetoric as California is dependant on illegal
farm workers. The fields would rot or they would have to pay
people $30.00 an hour and it would cost you $20.00 for a head
of lettuce. Remember Orange county as how many oranges do you
see now? Where do you think most oranges come from now and
it's not Florida? For somebody who lives in California you
sure don't know the states economy. Even Governor Reagan back
then wanted to break the United Farm Workers Union and
encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
>
> > It reminds me of the Alamo heroes that gained Texas their
> > independance from the dictator of Mexico. One of the
> > arguements was that Mexico did not allow religious
> > freedom.
Once
> > they gained their independence they put the black man in
> > chains,
instituted
> > slavery and proclaimed Texas a free state.
>
> You clearly don't know much about history. I'm most pissed
> off about your claim that Texas was declared a free state,
> though that's not your only flaw. Just remember, Texas was
> declared a FREE *REPUBLIC*.

You can count the minutes that it was a Republic. Let me ask
you a question here, who is the Secretary of State? I suppose
I would have to tell you what State right?

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:13:27 -0500, Bob Pastorio
<pastorio@rica.net> wrote:

>the only problem with that theory is that it doesn't take
>into account the other cases traced to green onions.

Seems like it's very common that cooks never wash their hands
after visiting toilet in US .-) Bad practice. Many get
diseased by that.

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:01:31 GMT, Reg <reg@nospam.com> wrote:

>OK, you want a scenario (in addition to the Chi-Chi's case,
>of course). Somebody decides they want to create an oil
>infusion using green onions. They put their onions in a
>bottle of olive oil, leave it around for awhile at room
>temperature and end up with a bottle full of botulism toxin.
>
>So ya see Mr crypto-vegan, my assertion stands. Green onions
>(or *any* food product for that matter), if improperly
>handled, can carry food poisoning. It can, but does not
>necessarily have to, come from human contact with the food
>item in question.

when it come to C. botulinum spores and vegetables, they are
__ALWAYS__ infected, no matter how it is handled. But only by
spores from contact with the soil it grows in. All kind of
soil contain spores of C. botulinum, and immersing in oil and
kept at room temperature for some week is certainly a
condition good enough to waken up most of the spores to make
living bacterias. It's basic microbiology. Even sterilized
soil contain spores of C. botulinum. They may be viable even
after many thousands of years in soil. Only heating wet at 130
deg C or dry at more than 300 deg C will kill them. But that
would destroy most of the soil too.

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:37:42 GMT, Richard Periut
<rperiut@njDOTrr.com> wrote:

>Green onions by themselves need to be contaminated by some
>person, animal, or thing. Clear?

Never heard before that onions is grown without soil ?? Soil
in itself will provide enough C. botulinum spores to make any
part of vegetables growing in the soil or parts where soil may
be splashed onto during hard rain weather, to infect the plant
with at least one spore. One spore on the skin of the plant is
enough to make a population of living C. botulinum if
conditions are there, like oxygen free vegetable oil in room
temperature.

[Nonymous]

"Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vrrgro67bl0g87@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
> news:rkxub.1355$do1.571@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > Robert ranted:
> >
> > >>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal
> > >>immigrants from all over the world.
> > >
> > > That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the
> > > continenent of
North
> > > America, Central America and South America, which we
> > > shorten it to us Americans.
> >
> > Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor
> > do people south of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on
> > Central or South America, and most of North America is
> > comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
>
> Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said
> exactly that. It
has
> the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.

No, the Monroe Doctrine declared that the Americas were no
longer open to European colonization and that any further
attempts by Europeans to colonize or politically influence the
Americas may be considered hostile by the U.S.

I think you're mean the concept of Manifest Destiny.

[Usual Susp]

Robert ranted:
>>>>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal
>>>>immigrants from all over the world.
>>>
>>>That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the
>>>continenent of North America, Central America and South
>>>America, which we shorten it to us Americans.
>>
>>Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor do
>>people south of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on
>>Central or South America, and most of North America is
>>comprised of Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
>
> Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said
> exactly that.

No, it didn't. The Monroe Doctrine was about European
colonization in the Western Hemisphere, not about US claims on
other nations. You're again showing your ignorance of history.

> It has the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.

That's not the case at all. If it were, we'd have Mexico
paying us to take care of their citizens who've flooded our
border states.

>>>Give us your unwanted, poor etc.
>>
>>No, please don't. Give us your industrious and wise instead.
>
> Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had
> $100,000 at hand for Canadian citizenship right after the
> turnover to China.

Canada also takes in many from all over the world who lack
resources and want asylum.

>>>Lets talk realism here, when we have 2 kids per family and
>>>with the baby boomers going on to retirement, then we don't
>>>have enough people to
> cover
>>>their care.
>>
>>Yes, and we should abolish Ponzi schemes like Social
>>Security and Medicare immediately so they'll still have time
>>to stash some money in their 401(k)s and IRAs.
>
> Any system you come up with is dependant on the young who
> are working.

No, only those which tax and spend. The issue of dependence,
though, is fundamental in any program which taxes and spends
since it diminishes workers' savings.

> It's a pyrimide where you need productive growth.

"Productive growth" isn't a function of population growth,
which is at the core of your argument.

> No growth and productivity results in great loses and the
> old dependent on 401's goes down the tube.

Productivity has increased in most industries even with fewer
workers. Profits have continued to grow because of such
efficiency. Your argument is baseless.

>>>We need a large working force to pay for the care and
>>>Social Security.
>>
>>FU. We don't need Social Security. Or "the care," whatever
>>the hell that
> is.
>
> Take a class in economics dude.

I've actually taken several courses in economics, including
some taught by the kinds of people who like socialist programs
like "the care" and Social (in)Security. What is undeniable is
that SS programs and others are inefficient, and the
inefficiencies are unrelated to demographics.

The program was not designed as a pension plan. Its use as one
has wrecked it and harmed our economy, and in order for it to
succeed the economy must be strong. More workers and/or more
efficiency will only float an inefficient transfer system for
so long. SS outlays are expected to increase some 15-25% per
year for the next thirty years. If we allow or encourage the
US population to compound at the same exponential rates, we'll
have almost two billion people in that amount of time. And in
another thirty years, the population would be in excess of
1,350,000,000,000 people. Where the fuck will you put 1.3
*TRILLION* people on this continent?

> You need need a young working class that keeps cost down and
> immigration does the trick.

Costs will compound regardless of population and immigration.

> Without them the price of production becomes too high and
> you will see more jobs leave this country where foreign
> workers get paid $2.00 an hour.

That's already happening. The real cost in the US of a $30,000
employee to an employer in traceable costs (taxes, benefits,
etc.) is about $45,000; that's without considering
nontraceable costs (lost or diminished productivity, etc.),
specialized training, etc. The SS burden to employers is the
same as employees, and doubled up on self-employed. We don't
need immigration reform, we need tax reform.

> This is a world economy with free trade and all.

Not quite free trade, but we may get there some day.

>>>The only way to do is through immigration.
>>
>>No, there are other ways that make a lot more sense --
>>especially with so many unassimilated immigrants here
>>already.

Like tax reform. Eliminate all corporate taxes and capital
gains taxes. That would be a good start. Increase the maximums
for IRA and other retirement programs.

The way it stands now, Congress will likely increase tax rates
as the baby boomers mature. This will skim a lot off the
tax-deferred savings of those who were wise enough to save for
retirement to benefit those who weren't. That would be wrong,
but that's what I expect to happen because of government's
inherent shortsightedness and preference for big programs over
self-sufficiency.

>>>The economics will cover themselves as if people can't work
>>>then the government will cut back on benefits and money.
>>
>>What are you smoking, Bob?
>>
>>
>>>The immigrant has the advantage as they come from countries
>>>where they
>
> have
>
>>>no government programs giving people money so they have
>>>learned to do without and with very little help compared to
>>>home grown citizens.
>>
>>How the hell is that an "advantage"?
>
> They get paid less

Only in the black market. Once they go on the books, they get
the benefits everyone else does.

> and the job stays here

Not in every industry. Relocation will still occur with
increasing frequency, and for the same reasons. Labor is a
commodity, and efficiencies can be had by hiring from pools
where it costs significantly less. With our current business
tax and regulatory climate, that means elsewhere.

> plus the work they do can not be done by these people who
> are spoiled as citizens here are.

Wrong. It can be done. They won't do it so long as you pay
them not to work. This is why we should end welfare rather
than "mend" it.

>>>There is no communist system in their country of origin
>>>usually.
>>
>>Irrelevant. The issue isn't communism or socialism, per se.
>>You're forgetting how much foreign aid and private relief
>>benefits third-world slackers.
>
> Foreign aid my friend is payoffs to corrupt leaders.

Much of it yes, all of it no. Besides, I said private relief.
That has always had more accountability tied to it than
federal relief programs, whether it's for domestic or foreign
use. End foreign aid and encourage private relief efforts.

> It never gets to the people nor does the US care where it
> goes as long as it can buys influence.

Bullshit.

> Iraq is a good example.

How much did we give Iraq in the 1980s?

> How much aid did we give the Phillipines with Marcos during
> those years and all it got was shoes for Imelda Marcoes.

You tell me. How much aid did we give the Philippines (spell
it correctly next time) in the 1960s-80s? What did we get for
it besides use of bases? What about the jobs to locals our
bases provided? And the local economic activity of all those
US servicemen and servicewomen and their families?

> Every time we want to go to war we offer aid for bases like
> Turkey remember.

Not always. We didn't offer aid to the Saudis in the 1990s. We
also offer aid whether we have bases or not. The offer to
Turkey wasn't for aid, but increasing it. Pay attention to the
news next time.

> Give us bases and get aid or don't give us bases and no aid.
> Going to the people? Boy are you naive.

Everywhere we've had bases, there's been a boom in the
economy. Many Filipinos wanted the US out of the Philippines;
the most vigorous defenders of America in the Philippines
continue to be those living in and around our bases. Those
people benefitted from the economic activity provided. That's
true even in places like Saudi Arabia, where some business
people want us to remain though Wahabis want us out. I think
you're the naive one.

>>>You will never see a person on Welfare go work in the
>>>fields. Instead they complain about foreigners taking
>>>benefits and jobs.
>>
>>I don't know where you live, but illegal immigrants are
>>causing a lot of problems down here along the border. We
>>have to educate their children, we have to provide medical
>>care, and we house and clothe and feed them. That eats into
>>state and local budgets for EVERY program designed to
>>benefit people who are here *legally*.
>
> All children are educated and we start ESL special ed
> programs aimed primarily for illegals. Everyone knows this.

Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. Before certain
Supreme Court rulings, schools didn't have to offer ESL or
educate children who should've been in a different country.

> Medical care, we don't want infectious diseases spread

That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal
aliens. They could receive such care in their native countries
and await visas and come here legally.

> and we want to encourage illegals in coming here so we
> provide free child prenatal care so they can have
> babies here.

That's NOT why we provide such treatment. We do it because the
Court has required care to be administered without
consideration of legal status.

> Most of these people are working the money goes into the
> federal withholding that they never see again.

They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have
processes for legal immigration. They're in violation of our
laws. Many of them do NOT pay withholding taxes because they
must have green cards to work legally. You apparently are not
familiar with immigration status as it relates to taxation. At
best, the only taxes illegals pay are sales taxes.

> All these programs are here to help the illegals as they
> always have a "don't ask don't tell" policy concerning
> legal status.

Bullshit. Healthcare programs exist for the benefits of legal
citizens and legal aliens.

> If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the
> border patrol,

He used to do that.

> why?

Because most police departments are (a) too overburdened
with illegal immigrants to do the job of the INS and (b)
tired of INS releasing illegals while their status hearings
are pending. The INS doesn't automatically deport every
illegal alien. And most illegals never show up for their
status hearings.

> Why not investigate people before benefits are given out and
> it's the same answer.

Why not defend our borders and enforce our laws?

>>The fastest way to get California's budget balanced would be
>>to send illegals back home when they're caught. In fact,
>>they'd have a big ass surplus.
>
> All that is rhetoric as California is dependant on illegal
> farm workers.

No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with
green cards (meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from
migrant farm workers.

> The fields would rot or they would have to pay people $30.00
> an hour and it would cost you $20.00 for a head of lettuce.

Hyperbole. Even at $30/hour, a head of lettuce wouldn't
cost $20/head.

> Remember Orange county as how many oranges do you see now?
> Where do you think most oranges come from now and it's not
> Florida?

Improved and cheaper transportation and trade agreements are
more responsible for the availability of non-domestic produce.

> For somebody who lives in California you sure don't know the
> states economy.

I live in Texas. We, too, have a very large citrus industry,
and it's doing pretty well.

> Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United
> Farm Workers Union and encourged illegals here to take
> their jobs.

What's your source for this information?

>>>It reminds me of the Alamo heroes that gained Texas their
>>>independance from the dictator of Mexico. One of the
>>>arguements was that Mexico did not allow religious freedom.
> Once
>>>they gained their independence they put the black man in
>>>chains,
> instituted
>>>slavery and proclaimed Texas a free state.
>>
>>You clearly don't know much about history. I'm most pissed
>>off about your claim that Texas was declared a free state,
>>though that's not your only flaw. Just remember, Texas was
>>declared a FREE *REPUBLIC*.
>
> You can count the minutes that it was a Republic.

Try years. Two weeks short of a decade.

> Let me ask you a question here, who is the Secretary
> of State?

US? Colin Powell. Texas? Geoff Connor. California (since you
seem to think I live there)? Kevin Shelley, iirc.

> I suppose I would have to tell you what State right?

It depends on the context of your question, not on semantics.

[Robert]

"Nonymous" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2t6dnfNbbZ4OtiOiRVn-hQ@giganews.com...
>
> "Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vrrgro67bl0g87@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
> > news:rkxub.1355$do1.571@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > > Robert ranted:
> > >
> > > >>Mexico and Central America, though we have illegal
> > > >>immigrants from
all
> > > >>over the world.
> > > >
> > > > That's why we are called "Americans". We claim the
> > > > continenent of
> North
> > > > America, Central America and South America, which we
> > > > shorten it to
us
> > > > Americans.
> > >
> > > Canadians don't call themselves Americans very much, nor
> > > do people
south
> > > of our border. BTW, the US has no claim on Central or
> > > South America,
and
> > > most of North America is comprised of Mexico and Canada.
> > > Go figure.
> >
> > Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said
> > exactly that. It
> has
> > the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.
>
> No, the Monroe Doctrine declared that the Americas were no
> longer open to European colonization and that any further
> attempts by Europeans to
colonize
> or politically influence the Americas may be considered
> hostile by the
U.S.

They have used that argument in every country that has leftist
leanings. They threatened invasion because of communist
influence and thus USSR influence. In short leftist meant
"foreign influence" and thus the US gave it itself the right
based on that doctrine to mess with every countries internal
political affairs. The CIA in Chile and military actions in
Nicaragua. We train every military from the Americas here so
we can keep an eye on them. It is justified by us historically
through the Monroe Doctrine.
>
> I think you're mean the concept of Manifest Destiny.
That is the actual taking of the land but colonization
concepts are always there to preserve US interest in the
Americas and throughout the world. Columbus discovered America
and claimed it for Spain. He landed in the Dominican Republic
and that country speaks Spanish as most of the Americas. There
was Spanish influence for centuries and it was through a War
in California and in the southwest in which a treaty was
signed. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in which all mexican
citizens living in the southwest were granted all the benefits
and rights of newly gained of US citizenship. They were the
first mexicans granted amnesty and all illegals since then
have followed. At that time the racist views caused the
lynching and complete land grabbing of legally owned land by
the previous mexican landowners. This was Manifest Destiny and
every country in the world does not underestimate the will of
Americans when they want something. You have the only country
in the whole world that has ever used a nuclear weapon on
another country killing women, children, and everything,
threatening other countries not to develop nuclear weapons. We
invade countries because of a percieved threat to develop a
weapon and we do this without UN approval or anybody elses. Is
this a great country or what?

[Robert]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message > >
Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which the US said
exactly that.
>
> No, it didn't. The Monroe Doctrine was about European
> colonization in the Western Hemisphere, not about US claims
> on other nations. You're again showing your ignorance of
> history.

Please read your own statement. Let me rephrase what you said
"European colonization", meaning the US lays claim to the
western hemisphere and any Eropean countries would yield a
military response from the US. I was a clear declaration of a
US claim to the hemisphere. You don't see that then I am
sorry for you.
>
> > It has the right to do what ever it wants in the Americas.
>
> That's not the case at all. If it were, we'd have Mexico
> paying us to take care of their citizens who've flooded our
> border states.

I agree and better still we would not have any mexicans come
here without the help of the american government. The fact is
they are generating income and providing low cost workers
needed by the US to make it competitive and keeping jobs
within the US. Your argument doesn't make sense. Why do US
presidents time after time grant amnesty to illegals and
render them "legal". It does two things. 1. it takes away the
arguement that they are "illegal" and 2. It pomotes and
encourages more "temporary illegals" to come across the border
until the next president makes them legal. That is reality and
what you say is pure rhetoric and makes no sense at all.
> > Any system you come up with is dependant on the young who
> > are working.
>
> No, only those which tax and spend. The issue of dependence,
> though, is fundamental in any program which taxes and spends
> since it diminishes workers' savings.

A government gets it's money from the workers and the less
number of workers the less money that government has to spend.
>
> > It's a pyrimide where you need productive growth.
>
> "Productive growth" isn't a function of population growth,
> which is at the core of your argument.

Productive growth is needed in any stock market growth but in
terms of people working and paying taxes then with all the
jobs not being filled now because of a decreasing population
you would need to tax the remaining working force 80% to cover
all the baby boomers.
>
> > No growth and productivity results in great loses and the
> > old dependent on 401's goes down the
tube.
>
> Productivity has increased in most industries even with
> fewer workers. Profits have continued to grow because of
> such efficiency. Your argument is baseless.

Company growth and government income are different. Yes
companies can make more money by decreasing their work
force and becoming more productive but they are not giving
it to the government. Most of the time the work force
reduction is mandatory to just stay in business. The market
forces always go to cheap labor so to say anything
different is really weird.
> I've actually taken several courses in economics, including
> some taught by the kinds of people who like socialist
> programs like "the care" and Social (in)Security. What is
> undeniable is that SS programs and others are inefficient,
> and the inefficiencies are unrelated to demographics.
at the same

I agree but the SS is still taken out of every pay check and
the less number of pay checks the less money there is.
> We don't need immigration reform, we need tax reform.

I wasn't saying anything about immigration reform, only
stating what the policy is now which encourages illegal
immigration. I am perplexed how this is translated by many
here as immigrant driven rather than US driven. Illegals don't
hire themselves ask Walmart. Why would they knowingly hire or
anyone hire one? They can't very well hide and they don't
speak the language. The answer is pretty obvious. They are
wanted here.

> The way it stands now, Congress will likely increase tax
> rates as the baby boomers mature. This will skim a lot off
> the tax-deferred savings of those who were wise enough to
> save for retirement to benefit those who weren't. That would
> be wrong, but that's what I expect to happen because of
> government's inherent shortsightedness and preference for
> big programs over self-sufficiency.

So who's to blame for that? People don't know how to live
without government programs vs the immigrant from a country
who never had one to begin with. The mind set and
resourcefulness are different. You have people living on the
side of a slope with an open flame kettle for meals. These are
the working homeless.
>
> > It never gets to the people nor does the US care where it
> > goes as long as it can buys
influence.
>
> Bullshit.

See the movie "Blackhawk Down".

> Not always. We didn't offer aid to the Saudis in the 1990s.

So we then offered aid to save their necks later on. Then we
set a base up.

We also
> offer aid whether we have bases or not. The offer to Turkey
> wasn't for aid, but increasing it. Pay attention to the news
> next time.

We pay to use bases in Turkey as they are there. The
additional aid was for the "use" of the base for war. It is a
NATO country dude, really man.

>
> > Give us bases and get aid or don't give us bases and no
> > aid. Going to
the
> > people? Boy are you naive.
>
> Everywhere we've had bases, there's been a boom in the
> economy. Many Filipinos wanted the US out of the
> Philippines; the most vigorous defenders of America in the
> Philippines continue to be those living in and around our
> bases. Those people benefitted from the economic activity
> provided. That's true even in places like Saudi Arabia,
> where some business people want us to remain though Wahabis
> want us out. I think you're the naive one.

I never said people don't want our money and quite the
contrary they do. The US uses the aid to not only political
advantage but to a military one. You are the one saying the US
are saints in giving humanitarian aid without expectations. We
expect things for money spent. How much money are we giving
the pilipinos now without bases vs before when we had bases
there? Where did that money go to?

> Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. Before certain
> Supreme Court rulings, schools didn't have to offer ESL or
> educate children who should've been in a different country.

This is the kind of double talk I am referring to. It is an
illegal act to enter this country without documentation and
any illegals should be deported. What part don't you
understand in that simple concept. You even have the Supreme
Court protecting illegals because they are needed here. Don't
tell me the Supreme Court had to make that ruling as they
could have ruled any way they wanted. Did they ever rule
slavery as unconstitutional? No. They had to have come to a
conclusion that illegals are needed here for the cheap labor
and therefore their children had a right to go to school.
There is no other way to see that.
>
> > Medical care, we don't want infectious diseases spread
>
> That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal
> aliens. They could receive such care in their native
> countries and await visas and come here legally.

That's true so why do we provide it then?
>
> > and we want to encourage illegals in coming here so we
> > provide free child prenatal care so they can have
> > babies here.
>
> That's NOT why we provide such treatment. We do it because
> the Court has required care to be administered without
> consideration of legal status.

For having future babies, I beg your pardon? These are not
acute medical emergencies. The Court does not see legal
residency as an issue? That is my whole point as there is no
difference in the courts or out in the streets as to illegal
vs legal immigration. That is by intent not initiated by the
illegals but by the US.
>
> > Most of these people are working the money goes into the
> > federal withholding
that
> > they never see again.
>
> They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have
> processes for legal immigration. They're in violation of
> our laws.
Only one law that is not enforced by the Courts themselves so
you again rely on that non legal distinction between illegal
and legal immigrant.

> > All these programs are here to help the illegals as
> > they always have a "don't ask don't tell" policy
> > concerning legal
status.
>
> Bullshit. Healthcare programs exist for the benefits of
> legal citizens and legal aliens.

Because of community health issues illegals are encourged to
apply for this help as they want to prevent an illegal having
a baby that will be a burden to the State and other conditions
such as TB etc.
>
> > If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the
> > border patrol,
>
> He used to do that.
>
> > why?
>
> Because most police departments are (a) too overburdened
> with illegal

The rest is bull as aren't you afraid of all these terrorist
out there. Let's see give an illegal a ten year prison term
and how much would that cost at $20,000 a year.
>
> No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with
> green cards (meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs from
> migrant farm workers.

Now you got it, they are legal because they were granted legal
status by the sign of the presidential pen.
>
> > Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United
> > Farm Workers
Union
> > and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
>
> What's your source for this information?
Every Governor in the history of the state has asked for
presidential legal amnesty especially during the boycott
years. You got to be kidding. I marched with Mr Chavez. There
was no protection of union organizers and if you didn't know
that Mr Conservative did not like unions. Let me give you a
clue here as most Republican conservatives don't like unions.
Shocking isn't it. Here's another hint, Bobby Kennedy marched
with us and he was not a Republican like Reagan. Here's
another shocker, Democrats like unions. Oh, and I don't have
any reference for the above so I must be wrong;
>
> > I suppose I would have to tell you what State right?
>
> It depends on the context of your question, not on
> semantics.
>
The State Department refers to "states" so the term can apply
to a country such as Texas or a state of the union such as
Texas. There were blacks who fought for Texas independence and
after the fight was won you enslaved them. Even after letters
from leaders for their freedom. It never mentions that at the
Alamo does it? UOT museum San Antonio

[Arri Londo]

Alf Christophersen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:37:42 GMT, Richard Periut
> <rperiut@njDOTrr.com> wrote:
>
> >Green onions by themselves need to be contaminated by some
> >person, animal, or thing. Clear?
>
> Never heard before that onions is grown without soil ?? Soil
> in itself will provide enough C. botulinum spores to make
> any part of vegetables growing in the soil or parts where
> soil may be splashed onto during hard rain weather, to
> infect the plant with at least one spore. One spore on the
> skin of the plant is enough to make a population of living
> C. botulinum if conditions are there, like oxygen free
> vegetable oil in room temperature.

Yes, but we were talking about hepatitis virus, not any of the
Clostridia.

[Richard Pe]

Alf Christophersen wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:37:42 GMT, Richard Periut
> <rperiut@njDOTrr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Green onions by themselves need to be contaminated by some
>>person, animal, or thing. Clear?
>
>
> Never heard before that onions is grown without soil ?? Soil
> in itself will provide enough C. botulinum spores to make
> any part of vegetables growing in the soil or parts where
> soil may be splashed onto during hard rain weather, to
> infect the plant with at least one spore. One spore on the
> skin of the plant is enough to make a population of living
> C. botulinum if conditions are there, like oxygen free
> vegetable oil in room temperature.
>

Soils that are acidic don't harbor Clostridia well.

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with
some fava beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

[Rona Yutha]

"Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vrrgro67bl0g87@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had
> $100,000 at hand for Canadian citizenship right after the
> turnover to China.

That's news to me. I know of many Hong Kong nationals who came
to Canada through the Immigrant Investor or Business
Entrepreneur programs but those programs were not limited to
Hong Kong nationals. Anyone with the required amount of money
(IIRC, the amounts differed depending on which programme you
applied for) who was accepted received *permanent residency*
and after the standard number of years (used to be 5, might be
3 now) could apply for Canadian citizenship. These programs
have been around since 1986 at least, and may have existed in
a different form earlier (I had HK friends who immigrated in
1983 but I never discussed how their parents applied to come
to Canada).

rona

--
***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the
inconvenience!***

[Robert]

"Rona Yuthasastrakosol" <prasantrin@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:uHBvb.16913$MW5.25802@news1.mts.net...
>
> "Robert" <Robert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vrrgro67bl0g87@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had
> > $100,000 at
hand
> > for Canadian citizenship right after the turnover to
> > China.
>
> That's news to me. I know of many Hong Kong nationals who
> came to Canada through the Immigrant Investor or Business
> Entrepreneur programs but those programs were not limited to
> Hong Kong nationals. Anyone with the
required
> amount of money (IIRC, the amounts differed depending on
> which programme
you
> applied for) who was accepted received *permanent residency*
> and after the standard number of years (used to be 5, might
> be 3 now) could apply for Canadian citizenship. These
> programs have been around since 1986 at
least,
> and may have existed in a different form earlier (I had HK
> friends who immigrated in 1983 but I never discussed how
> their parents applied to come to Canada).
>
> rona
>
That's the program and it was written up here in the context
of Hong Kong just before the hand over as many HK people were
getting nervous. The impression by the article was one in
which a person can buy Canadian citizenship or legal status.

> --
> ***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the
> inconvenience!***

[Robert]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message >
> First, I wrote: Canadians don't call themselves Americans
> very much, nor do people south of our border.
Let me repeat myself or at least let me make it clear that
US citizens call themselves "Americans", as you mentioned
none of those other nations do. We make an assumption that
we ARE AMERICA.

BTW, the US has no claim on Central
> or South America, and most of North America is comprised of
> Mexico and Canada. Go figure.
>
> Then you replied: Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine in which
> the US said exactly that. It has the right to do what ever
> it wants in the Americas.
>
> The Monroe Doctrine is not license or right for the US "to
> do what ever [sic] it wants in the Americas." It is very
> specific in its scope.

Don't make me laugh as it was used in Cuba to invade that
country. That half ass invasion brought back cuban refugees.
The Monroe Doctrine has been supersided now by the Bush
Doctrine. We will invade any country if they have WMD and if
we don't find any WMD then it was justified because "they were
thinking" of getting them.
>
> > Let me rephrase what you said "European colonization",
> > meaning the US lays claim to the western hemisphere
>
> Wrong. The US doesn't lay claim to the western hemisphere.
> It had four elements. First, Monroe proposed that the
> American continents were "henceforth not to be considered as
> subjects for future colonization by any European powers."

Because the US layed claim to that. You can not have two
colonizing powers. Second, he proposed that nations in
the western
> hemisphere were to remain (by distinction) republics by
> nature rather than monarchies (this followed on the heels of
> attempts of installing an emperor in Mexico and elsewhere).
When did the US go to war over an emperor in Mexico? The US
Mexican war was a drumed up war to gain land for the Manifest
Destiny. The US was really conconcerned about Mexico so it
liberated that land from them so I guess that worked and saved
that portion of land from falling to an emperor. Third, Monroe
stated that the United
> States would regard as a threat to its own peace and safety
> any attempt by European powers to impose their system on any
> independent state in the western hemisphere.
Not state but Republics. More importantly what were the
consequences it those other countries if they didn't listen to
the US? It would go to war to protect it's colonies.

Finally, Monroe reaffirmed that the United
> States would not interfere in European affairs.
>
> Don't take my word for it. Go read it for yourself, dimwit:

European countries established every country known in the
present day Americas.
> http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/monrodoc.html
>
> > I was a clear declaration of a US claim to the hemisphere.
>
> No, Monroe did not lay claim to the entire freaking
> hemisphere. The US was, in a sense, protector of the
> hemisphere, but we did not lay claim to it.

Protector? what a naive idiotic you are. Slavery existed under
direct US soil. No slavery in Mexico are any of the Americas.
The US brought in the slaves. I suppose they were being
protected.
>
> The jobs are here, but their families aren't. Illegal
> immigrants siphon over $9 billion a year and send it home to
> Mexico. Labor is Mexico's biggest export. It benefits the
> Mexican economy more than ours, especially when you consider
> the impact illegals have on our education, welfare, and
> healthcare systems.
So all the Presidents who grant amnesty are idiots. They know
the numbers and all the aguments and they have all come up
with the same conclusion, both Republican and Democrat.

>
> > Your argument doesn't make sense.
>
> Ipse dixit. Why doesn't it make sense? Be specific.
>
> > Why do US presidents time after time grant amnesty to
> > illegals and render them "legal". It does two things.
1.
> > it takes away the arguement that they are "illegal"
>
> Irrelevant. That in itself isn't an argument for amnesty,
> and it only explains that an action has taken place -- but
> not WHY it has taken place. Try again.

It means they are no longer illegal but legal so those terms
are interchangable.
>
> > and 2. It pomotes and encourages more "temporary illegals"
> > to come across the border until the next president makes
> > them legal.
>
> That may (and does) happen, but that isn't WHY it happens.
> Try again.
>
> > That is reality and what you say is pure rhetoric and
> > makes no sense at
all.
>
> You're a fucking joke. I encourage you to review the
> following list of logical fallacies. See if you can figure
> out the ones that apply to your statement of "reality."

Calling me an idiot? I am not able to employ illegals nor
am I able to grant amnesty like the president so what are
their reasons?

>
> >
> > A government gets it's money from the workers and the less
> > number of
workers
> > the less money that government has to spend.

> But, again, you're just plain wrong. Revenue has nothing to
> do with the number of workers.

Ok, smart guy so why then do we need illegals here?
>
> > Illegals don't hire themselves ask Walmart.
>
> Neither does Walmart. Some of their contractors did. It's
> only a question if Walmart actually knew about it, or
> approved of it.
they knew about it because of bids to do the work they
undercut with low wages and go with that like any business
would. They turn the other way. area find work for
> sub-contractors in the building trades, landscaping, and
> other such labor. They do a good day's work for much less
> than what many others require, especially if union workers
> demanding scale. You say they don't hurt anyone. Tell that
> to someone who doesn't get as much work, if any, for $15 an
> hour because someone working off the books and here
> illegally will do the same job (and just as well) for less
> than minimum wage.

Socialized work. I am all for free enterprize. You want to
subsidize workers then go to Cuba.
>
> > This is the kind of double talk I am referring to. It is
> > an illegal act
to
> > enter this country without documentation and any illegals
> > should be deported. What part don't you understand in that
> > simple concept.
>
> I *do* understand that concept. Go ask the fucking Supreme
> Court why *they* don't get the concept.
>
> > You even have the Supreme Court protecting illegals
> > because they are
needed
> > here.
>
> That's *not* why the SC mandates that states apply programs
> to them.
>
> > Don't tell me the Supreme Court had to make that ruling as
> > they could have ruled any way they wanted.
>
> Actually, I'd say that they're supposed to rule on the basis
> of the Constitution, but it's clear that they don't do that
> very often.
>
> > Did they ever rule slavery as unconstitutional? No.
>
> Irrelevant issue.
>
> > They had to have come to a conclusion that illegals are
> > needed here for the cheap labor and therefore their
> > children had a
right
> > to go to school. There is no other way to see that.
>
> Yes there is: the right way. The Supreme Court has based
> their decisions about illegal immigrants (children and
> adults) on case law, not on economic necessity. See PLYER V
> DOE, 1982. The Court's decision was based on equal
> protection of individuals.

Yes, equal protection of mexican citizens. It's hard to give a
person US rights if they are deported and not even in the
states. Lets see what if we place them in Guantanamo base do
they still have rights? No, the courts ruled so you deport
them. Are deportations illegal? You are full of it.
>
> >>>Medical care, we don't want infectious diseases spread
> >>
> >>That's NOT why we provide free medical care to criminal
> >>aliens. They could receive such care in their native
> >>countries and await visas and come here legally.
> >
> > That's true so why do we provide it then?
>
> Hospitals used to deny medical care to illegal aliens. One
> of them sued a hospital. The case went to the Supreme Court.
> The Court ruled that aliens were ENTITLED to the same
> treatment as legal citizens. I don't recall any of the
> relevant cases, but I believe most of them use PLYER as
> precedent and use the same equal protection finding.

No distinction between legal and illegal my point exactly.

> We used to deport pregnant women. Border officials still try
> to herd pregnant women back across the border. Once they're
> here, and once they give birth, their child is a ticket to
> welfare and other benefits, as well as citizenship for the
> entire family.

I thought they were taking jobs. Which is it? Are they all on
Welfare or are they taking jobs away from citizens? You want
to have it both ways just as long as it is ethnocentric in
origin for you.

> > That is my whole point as there is no difference in the
> > courts or out in the
streets as
> > to illegal vs legal immigration. That is by intent not
> > initiated by the illegals but by the US.
>
> Bullshit, ipse dixit.
Yea, I meant to say the BS you say mainly "equal protection".
What a bunch of legal double talk.
>
> >>>Most of these people are working the money goes into the
> >>>federal withholding
> > that
> >>>they never see again.
> >>
> >>They should work and pay taxes in their homelands. We have
> >>processes for legal immigration. They're in violation of
> >>our laws.

Wrong! They have equal protection moron so what laws are they
violating two face. Is it against the law for them to apply
for medical benefits?
> First, the Court doesn't enforce laws; the Court interprets
> laws. The Supreme Court has never made a finding that our
> immigration laws are unconstitutional, nitwit. They HAVE
> found, for whatever reason(s), that entitlement programs
> must be operated without respect for legal status. Many of
> us find that inconsistent, as well as very expensive. I
> encourage you to read about immigration issues. The
> following site has some very helpful information, but they
> *are* activists who want less (not zero) immigration.

It doesn't matter what you want or what I want, it is driven
by market forces.
> Stop making up shit, you ignorant fuck. Name one government
> program which *encourages* illegals to apply for healthcare
> assistance for TB or anything else.
Brochers written in Spanish and taken to Camp sites by Public
Health Officers moron. They even have doctors visit them on
occasion if Public Health personal deem it necessary. Looks
like you completely forgot about equal protection and
protecting the public in matters of Public Health.

>
> Illegals usually wait until something's gone out of hand to
> go to an emergency room. They're afraid of deportation.
Which is it? They are afraid to go and apply for services
because they might get caught or as you stated earlier that
they apply for every benefit including Welfare? Again, you
want it both ways just as long as it conforms to your
arguments.

They're reliance on
> EMERGENCY ROOMS is at the heart of the problem.
They should go to public health clinics or public health
hospitals. One-third of the Texas
> state budget now goes for public health care expenses. ER
> bills of aliens are usually picked up by taxpayers. States
> aren't reimbursed for this by the feds.

And the answer is to go to them as the public health officers
do and inform them that they can not be deported for health
concerns and the cost will decrease for hospitals. That is the
Aim of Publich Health Departments.
>
>
> >>>If a police officer finds an illegal he does not call the
> >>>border
patrol,
> >>
> >>He used to do that.

Lets see here the Courts don't enforce the laws bright one and
now you tell me police don't. You really make me look stupid
with your intelect.
>
> Not bull, you bitch. I live about 200 miles from the border.
> Parts of my city are no longer distinguishable as an
> American city. Every convenience store does Mexico cash
> transfers for illegals. Many citizens are turned away from
> ERs this time of year because the illegals have inundated
> them. Etc.

That's pretty lame, now you are telling me it's not equal
protection but illegals have priority over citizens there. I
find that hard to believe that a city close to Mexico doesn't
look like an American city. Some even have Spanish I'll bet,
that's pretty shocking. The brown hords inundating you. '
> > Every Governor in the history of the state has asked for
> > presidential
legal
> > amnesty especially during the boycott years.
>
> Ipse dixit.
>
> > You got to be kidding.
>
> No, I'm not. You haven't supported any of your bullshit >
> > Let's see give an illegal a ten year prison term and how
> > much would that cost at $20,000 a year.
>
> Idiot. We don't imprison illegals unless they commit other
> crimes. We deport them.
>
> >>No, most farm workers are American citizens and those with
> >>green cards (meaning LEGAL aliens). Illegals take jobs
> >>from migrant farm workers.
> >
> > Now you got it, they are legal because they were granted
> > legal status by
the president.
> > sign of the presidential pen.
>
> No, clueless dolt. They have green cards because they go
> through INS processing. You're confusing green cards and
> visas with amnesty. A green card isn't amnesty. It's a
> legitimate step to citizenship.
>
> http://www.us-immigration.org/
>
> >>>Even Governor Reagan back then wanted to break the United
> >>>Farm Workers
> > Union
> >>>and encourged illegals here to take their jobs.
> >>
> >>What's your source for this information?
> >
above, so I
> don't expect you to support any below.
>
> > I marched with Mr Chavez.
>
> Sure you did.
>
> > There was no protection of union organizers and if you
> > didn't know that Mr Conservative did not
like
> > unions.
>
> He was president of one, asshole. It was called the Screen
> Actors Guild.

President Reagan, after his experience as Gov of California,
proudly signed an amnesty giving millions of undocumented
aliens legal status. Make no mistake about that.
> Maybe you forgot that while emoting over shit you don't
> comprehend.
>
> > Let me give you a clue here as most Republican
> > conservatives don't like unions. Shocking isn't it.
>
> Why did all those union voters overwhelmingly vote for
> Reagan in '80 and '84?
>
> > Here's another hint, Bobby Kennedy marched with us and he
> > was not a Republican like Reagan. Here's another shocker,
> > Democrats like unions.
>
> Why do Democrats raise taxes on union workers so much?
Don't like the observations OK then switch the two and then
start laughing at how dumb it would sound. Here's some of your
skewed view, most media is conservative and not liberal. No,
see how dumb that sounds.

> You're wrong regardless. Reagan was president of SAG, a
> union. He had nothing against them. Many union members are
> Republican, and they help elect GOP candidates. Democrats
> like unions because those high union wages are taxable
> despite all the fawning about being for the common man.

Yea sure, most unions and union members are Republicans. LOL.

> > There were blacks who fought for Texas independence and
> > after the fight
was
> > won you enslaved them.
>
> I didn't enslave anyone. I was born well over a 100
> years later.

You are a slave of your own ethnocentric view. Go to the Alamo
and don't forget to take your hat off to those great heroes
who brought slavery to the Republic of Texas.
>
> > Even after letters from leaders for their freedom. It
> > never mentions that at the Alamo does it?
>
> WTF does that have to do with anything in this thread, much
> less your rambling posts?

YOU DON"T LIKE MEXICANS. Most of it is hand me downs from the
Alamo. Mexicans are treated like shit in Texas because of it.
Thank God you stopped lynching them. All that's left is pseudo
logic trying to hide your racist view. Just be honest and say
you hate Mexicans and send them all back and then your city
will look more "American".

[Josh Rosen]

usual suspect <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:<%WMvb.29934$Ek.23575@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>Only if it collects x amount per worker. That's not how
> >>our system works. It's based on a "progressive" tax which
> >>generally punishes achievement and encourages sloth.
> >>Revenues are a function of tax rates in relation to
> >>economic activity. Increased levels of economic activity
> >>combined with lower tax rates (which usually spurs
> >>economic activity) can produce more revenue than higher
> >>tax rates (which usually slow down economic activity) and
> >>a slower economy. JFK and Reagan both cut tax rates, and
> >>net revenues increased as a result of the economic
> >>activity which followed in each instance. We've also seen
> >>the same effect with the tax rebates in the last couple
> >>years, particularly in the last quarter.
>
> I stand by what I wrote, particularly in the context of the
> OP's benighted statements. Since you took the time to reply,
> I'll address your statements.
>
> > In the case of Reagan, real income tax revenue was lower
> > in each of the first 5 years after the tax cut than the
> > year before.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif
>
> And before you whine about Heritage Foundation being
> right-wing, the data are from OMB.

I have two problems with Heritage's conclusions (I have the
same data from the OMB).

First, they use 1980 as the baseline. The correct baseline is
1981. The tax cut was signed into law in mid-August of 1981,
with its first impact on September paychecks. Fiscal year 1981
ended on September 30, 1981. Although the tax cut was
retroactive to the beginning of 1981, only that portion given
in the September paychecks was *credited* to fiscal 1981. The
rest of the retroactive piece (Oct, Nov and Dec paychecks,
plus the biggest chunk which was in the form of refunds in
1982) was credited to fiscal 1982.

Second, they lump payroll taxes (whose rates went up) with
income taxes.

> > Revenue jumped in year 6, but only because loopholes were
> > closed.
>
> TEFRA had *some* effect, but steady economic expansion had a
> greater effect.

I wasn't talking about TEFRA. I was talking about The Tax
Reform Act of 1986 (effective in 1987). If you were correct
and economic expansion was the cause of the jump in revenue in
1987, then we would have seen revenue/GDP hold steady in going
from 1986 to 1987 while the economy took off. Instead, we saw
income tax revenue/GDP jump in 1987 from 9.4% to 10.2% while
the economy grew no faster than before or since the tax cut.

> > Economic activity, as measured by the GDP growth rate, was
> > not any faster after Reagan's tax cut than it had been
> > historically,
>
> It was a lot higher than it had been under the previous
> administration. Two factors for that: lower interest rates
> and a rebounding economy.

You need to measure GDP growth rates over whole business
cycles because they are periodic functions. Sometimes that
coincides with administrations (Clinton, Reagan). Sometimes it
doesn't (Bush41 and to a much lesser extent Carter). GDP grew
at 3.4% in the Ford/Carter cycle (2Q75 to 3Q80) and 2.9% in
the Carter administration. Reagan's growth rate was 3.4%.

> > or even in the business cycle just prior to the tax cut.
>
> Which isn't saying much considering Carter's malaise.

I think you missed my point. GDP growth under Reagan was *NOT*
higher than in the business cycle under Carter, malaise and
all. That goes against your conclusion about tax cuts
resulting in economic growth and increased revenues.

> > As far as Bush's tax cuts goes, the jury is out. Revenue
> > is way down.
>
> A function of the 1999-2001 recession, which was compounded
> by the economic slowdown following 9/11.
>
> > The GDP growth rate since the first tax cut has been
> > about 1%-point lower than either the historical average
> > or the previous business cycle.
>
> Yes, and there are some unique exogenous variables to
> account for that, not the least of which is the terrorist
> activity which caused a lot of Americans to stop going out
> in public as much as they had before.
>
> > But, it is too early to make conclusions because we are
> > only in the beginning of an expansion.
>
> Yes, and how fast did GDP grow last quarter? Try 7.2%, which
> is the largest gain in any quarter since the mid-80s when
> you suggest the economy didn't expand. The quarter before
> last, GDP grew 3.3%. PCE (personal consumption expenditures)
> -- the primary cause of much of the slow-down in 2001-2 --
> is leading the way. Jobs are a lagging indicator, and
> there's some encouraging news there. You can wait to make
> your conclusions, but apparently employers and those who got
> tax rebates are reaching their own without you.

I don't dispute we are in a recovery, and hopefully a strong
one. What I do dispute is that long-term GDP growth will be
bigger with the tax cuts. That can't possibly be answered
until the long term is complete (i.e., an entire business
cycle). We can't judge based on a quarter, or two quarters,
or even 2 years. It is however true that growth has only been
2.2% even when including the fantastic 3Q03. I expect a
growth rate, over the entire Bush business cycle to be about
3 to 3.5%, in which case we can conclude "same old, same
old". No long-term effect of tax cuts, and tax cuts increase
deficits and debt.

Josh Rosenbluth

[Usual Susp]

Rona Yuthasastrakosol wrote:
>>Canada offered citizenship to Hong Kong nationals who had
>>$100,000 at hand for Canadian citizenship right after the
>>turnover to China.
>
> That's news to me. I know of many Hong Kong nationals who
> came to Canada through the Immigrant Investor or Business
> Entrepreneur programs but those programs were not limited to
> Hong Kong nationals. Anyone with the required amount of
> money (IIRC, the amounts differed depending on which
> programme you applied for) who was accepted received
> *permanent residency* and after the standard number of years
> (used to be 5, might be 3 now) could apply for Canadian
> citizenship. These programs have been around since 1986 at
> least, and may have existed in a different form earlier (I
> had HK friends who immigrated in 1983 but I never discussed
> how their parents applied to come to Canada).

Robert shoots from the hip and never offers evidence for his
outlandish claims. I found the following information online
which supports your recollections.

Immigrants from Hong Kong

Between 1988 and 1993, the number of immigrants that
arrived in Canada from Hong Kong was 125,000. They are
here because of the perceived political uncertainty
that may arise when Hong Kong reverts back to China
this year. To Hong Kongers, Canada is a safe place to
raise a family and a good place to invest in.

In 1993, only about 3,500 out of a total of 33,769
Hong Kong immigrants entered Canada under the Business
Immigration Program, which means that most of them
came under the Family Class. Under the Family Class,
Canadian Citizens and permanent residents who are 19
and over and living in Canada, can sponsor the
applications of some close relatives or dependents who
wish to immigrate to Canada.

Other Hong Kong immigrants come under the Business
Immigration Program. There are several categories
where these people could fall under. Most of them are
either Entrepreneurs or Investors. Entrepreneurs are
granted a visa if they invest a minimum of $250,000 in
the country and create jobs, and take upon a
managerial role in their business. Investors, on the
other hand, can take a more passive, but also a more
expensive role by investing $250,000-$500,000
(depending on which province they will invest) in the
country for a minimum of five years.

Most newcomers from Hong Kong flock to Toronto,
Vancouver, or Montreal. Others prefer to go to Calgary
or Edmonton. Unlike the immigrants of the last
century, many of the newcomers from Hong Kong today
are well-educated professionals
http://www.interlog.com/~fccs/immigration.htm

More information about the BIP can be found at the following
link: http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/english/business/index.html

**************
Note to Robert: You've yet to make a point that sticks. I also
see you've replied to my posts. What kind of crap did you make
up this time?

[Josh Rosen]

usual suspect <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:<lqzvb.17062$Vs1.103@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> Ignorant wrote:
> > A government gets it's money from the workers and the less
> > number of workers the less money that government has to
> > spend.
>
> Only if it collects x amount per worker. That's not how our
> system works. It's based on a "progressive" tax which
> generally punishes achievement and encourages sloth.
> Revenues are a function of tax rates in relation to economic
> activity. Increased levels of economic activity combined
> with lower tax rates (which usually spurs economic activity)
> can produce more revenue than higher tax rates (which
> usually slow down economic activity) and a slower economy.
> JFK and Reagan both cut tax rates, and net revenues
> increased as a result of the economic activity which
> followed in each instance. We've also seen the same effect
> with the tax rebates in the last couple years, particularly
> in the last quarter.

In the case of Reagan, real income tax revenue was lower in
each of the first 5 years after the tax cut than the year
before. Revenue jumped in year 6, but only because loopholes
were closed. Economic activity, as measured by the GDP growth
rate, was not any faster after Reagan's tax cut than it had
been historically, or even in the business cycle just prior to
the tax cut.

As far as Bush's tax cuts goes, the jury is out. Revenue is
way down. The GDP growth rate since the first tax cut has been
about 1%-point lower than either the historical average or the
previous business cycle. But, it is too early to make
conclusions because we are only in the beginning of an
expansion.

Josh Rosenbluth

[Alf Christ]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:01:55 GMT, Richard Periut
<rperiut@njDOTrr.com> wrote:

>Soils that are acidic don't harbor Clostridia well.

You are talking about living Clostridia. I'm talking about
non-living spores that will awake when the soil becomes soggy
and oxygen free and other conditions fit well. Spores may be
viable for thousands of years unless a forest fire disinfict
the soil by burning it.

When producing "rakaure" (fermented trout) there is one 100%
sure way to infect the fish with C. botulinum, let any
utensils that becomes ever in touch with the fish touch ground
of any kind. That infects the fish with enough number of
spores to make it highly toxic during the autolysis of the
fish. The fish and the flesh is sterile until the knife using
to remove the intestines is touching ground. Then there are at
least one spore of C. botulinum present, and autolysis end up
in C. botulinum production instead. Some producers infect the
fish by will with Acetobacter strains or other lactic acid
producing bacteria, but that is in fact a falsification. It is
harmless and prevent C. botulinum production by lowering pH
much faster than autolysis will, but it is not the old
tradition. Which is gutting the mountain trouts and placing
the head by tail with opened gut up, strewing some salt over
the fish in a wooden bucket (sterilized) and then fill with a
next layer of fish, in opposite direction of the previous
layer. That is continued until bucket is full, then a lid is
put on and the fish is put under pressure for some time and
then is resting in the cold until sold. But there should not
be any freezing temperature. It is a Christmas delicacy, but
now and then there are some bad fishes that reach market, and
there is a note of people being ill by C. botulinum. Since
eating rakaure is a usual habit in Norway, all hospitals has a
depot of antisera against C. botulinum intoxication and noone
has been killed by it the last 15 year or so, but about 15
people has been ill by it. Compared to about 1 million
annually eating the fish, the intoxication rate is rather low.

[Usual Susp]

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>A government gets it's money from the workers and the
>>>less number of workers the less money that government has
>>>to spend.
>>
>>Only if it collects x amount per worker. That's not how our
>>system works. It's based on a "progressive" tax which
>>generally punishes achievement and encourages sloth.
>>Revenues are a function of tax rates in relation to economic
>>activity. Increased levels of economic activity combined
>>with lower tax rates (which usually spurs economic activity)
>>can produce more revenue than higher tax rates (which
>>usually slow down economic activity) and a slower economy.
>>JFK and Reagan both cut tax rates, and net revenues
>>increased as a result of the economic activity which
>>followed in each instance. We've also seen the same effect
>>with the tax rebates in the last couple years, particularly
>>in the last quarter.

I stand by what I wrote, particularly in the context of the
OP's benighted statements. Since you took the time to reply,
I'll address your statements.

> In the case of Reagan, real income tax revenue was lower
> in each of the first 5 years after the tax cut than the
> year before.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif

And before you whine about Heritage Foundation being
right-wing, the data are from OMB.

> Revenue jumped in year 6, but only because loopholes
> were closed.

TEFRA had *some* effect, but steady economic expansion had a
greater effect.

> Economic activity, as measured by the GDP growth rate, was
> not any faster after Reagan's tax cut than it had been
> historically,

It was a lot higher than it had been under the previous
administration. Two factors for that: lower interest rates and
a rebounding economy.

> or even in the business cycle just prior to the tax cut.

Which isn't saying much considering Carter's malaise.

> As far as Bush's tax cuts goes, the jury is out. Revenue is
> way down.

A function of the 1999-2001 recession, which was compounded by
the economic slowdown following 9/11.

> The GDP growth rate since the first tax cut has been about
> 1%-point lower than either the historical average or the
> previous business cycle.

Yes, and there are some unique exogenous variables to account
for that, not the least of which is the terrorist activity
which caused a lot of Americans to stop going out in public as
much as they had before.

> But, it is too early to make conclusions because we are only
> in the beginning of an expansion.

Yes, and how fast did GDP grow last quarter? Try 7.2%, which
is the largest gain in any quarter since the mid-80s when you
suggest the economy didn't expand. The quarter before last,
GDP grew 3.3%. PCE (personal consumption expenditures) -- the
primary cause of much of the slow-down in 2001-2 -- is leading
the way. Jobs are a lagging indicator, and there's some
encouraging news there. You can wait to make your conclusions,
but apparently employers and those who got tax rebates are
reaching their own without you.

[Robert]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message >
> Robert shoots from the hip and never offers evidence for his
> outlandish claims. I found the following information online
> which supports your recollections.

I never said that it was limited to HK residents. The press at
the time was highlighting Canada's program in relation to HK
turnover and not living in Canada I had no clue as to the
complete immigration policies of Canada.

> In 1993, only about 3,500 out of a total of 33,769 Hong
> Kong immigrants entered Canada under the Business
> Immigration Program, which means that most of them came
> under the Family Class.
Again I never said all immigrants came under that program. How
can they? Not everybody has that kind of money.

> Other Hong Kong immigrants come under the Business
> Immigration Program. There are several categories where
> these people could fall under. Most of them are either
> Entrepreneurs or Investors. Entrepreneurs are granted a visa
> if they invest a minimum of $250,000 in the country and
> create jobs, and take upon a managerial role in their
> business. Investors, on the other hand, can take a more
> passive, but also a more expensive role by investing
> $250,000-$500,000 (depending on which province they will
> invest) in the country for a minimum of five years.

I do not recall that high amount as the amount I recall was
$100,000 so look again for another category.

Note to you,

Learn to clean your posts up, it's hard to read through all
that crap. Snip out Bozo.

[Usual Susp]

shithead wrote:
>>Robert shoots from the hip and never offers evidence for his
>>outlandish claims. I found the following information online
>>which supports your recollections.
>
> I never said that it was limited to HK residents.

You only addressed HK residents, pendejo.

> The press at the time was highlighting Canada's program in
> relation to HK turnover and not living in Canada I had no
> clue as to the complete immigration policies of Canada.

You didn't then and you still don't. You shoot from the hip,
as I said.

>>In 1993, only about 3,500 out of a total of 33,769 Hong
>>Kong immigrants entered Canada under the Business
>>Immigration Program, which means that most of them came
>>under the Family Class.
>
> Again I never said all immigrants came under that program.
> How can they? Not everybody has that kind of money.

That's the problem with your STUPID posts, pendejo. You made a
very specific claim and had nothing with which to support it.
The fact is you *generalized* about HK residents. Whatever you
saw or read spotlighted on a program -- ONE program -- with a
very narrow focus. That program wasn't an attempt to sell
citizenship to high bidders, but to encourage business
immigration for those who had their own capital.

>>Other Hong Kong immigrants come under the Business
>>Immigration Program. There are several categories where
>>these people could fall under. Most of them are either
>>Entrepreneurs or Investors. Entrepreneurs are granted a visa
>>if they invest a minimum of $250,000 in the country and
>>create jobs, and take upon a managerial role in their
>>business. Investors, on the other hand, can take a more
>>passive, but also a more expensive role by investing
>>$250,000-$500,000 (depending on which province they will
>>invest) in the country for a minimum of five years.
>
> I do not recall that high amount

I'm not surprised at your recollection.

> as the amount I recall was $100,000 so look again for
> another category.

No, YOU look. I did look and this was the *only* such program
that involved capital transfers in connection with
immigration. Canada continues to offer asylum to anyone,
anywhere, for any reason.

> Learn to clean your posts up,

Practice what you preach, pendejo.

> it's hard to read through all that crap.

I edited it so it would be easier to follow. The only "crap"
you find hard to read through are facts -- facts which prove
time after time that your silly statements are the incoherent
ramblings of a drunken, senile fool.

[Robert]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:BIKvb.29893$Ek.29211@twister.austin.rr.com...
> pendejo estupido wrote:
> >>First, I wrote: Canadians don't call themselves Americans
> >>very much, nor do people south of our border.
> >
> > Let me repeat myself or at least let me make it clear
>
> Repeating your incoherent bullshit doesn't clarify anything.
>
> > that US citizens call themselves "Americans", as you
> > mentioned none of those other nations do.
We
> > make an assumption that we ARE AMERICA.
>
> That's the kind of sophistry one only expects to hear at
> closing time. Shame a tee-totaler like me has to endure it.

Your responses are getting more silly so theres no point in
taking it to an 8 year olds level.

There have many programs including taking many mexican
nationals under the "bracero program" and placing them in the
fields of the US in the early years. These were "Mexican
nationals", in an effort to supply the farm labor d needed by
the US. Because of the rhetoric you bring, many want that
program started once more so in ten years they can grant those
people amnesty also. The program worked well but they never
went back home after many years here. That's when the amnessty
program started for the illegals and it wasn't President
Reagan who started it. There have been many presidents before
him and many after him that have amnesty or programs for
illegals rendering those arguments dead. The legal system and
all the social services have conformed to that fact that the
illegal will in time become legal and not deported. That is
why he has rights as if he is deported he has no US rights in
Mexico. The Unions are considered special interest groups by
the Republicans and most Unions have never given their support
to them. Ask Gov S who attacked every specials interest group
"Union" and won't talk to any. Reagan was one of the most
anti-Union pres you could want. He was big business gave the
rich everything they wanted, sprinkle down economics. To s ay
he was proUnion is stupid.

[Usual Susp]

pendejo estupido wrote:
> Your responses are getting more silly

Funny, I back mine up with links to sites that support my
claims; you continue to spew shit straight out of your ass
without any kind of support at all..

> so theres no point in taking it to an 8 year olds level.

Is that your age? I thought you said you marched with RFK
and Chavez.

> There have many programs including taking many mexican
> nationals under the "bracero program"

The 1940s were a long time ago. The bracero program only came
about because of US involvement in WWII. There was a serious
shortage of labor. The bracero program was abandoned by the
early 1960s. It was replaced by illegal immigration. A bracero
didn't become a US citizen; he was still a Mexican citizen.

http://www.farmworkers.org/bracerop.html

> and placing them in the fields of the US in the early years.
> These were "Mexican nationals", in an effort to supply the
> farm labor d needed by the US.

Only for about 20 years, pendejo.

> Because of the rhetoric you bring,

It's not "rhetoric," I've pasted links which support
everything I've said to you.

> many want that program started once more so in ten years
> they can grant those people amnesty also.

Braceros went home. They didn't receive amnesty, nor did they
become US citizens. *Some* may have, but that was much more an
exception than the rule.

> The program worked well but they never went back home after
> many years here.

Read the above link from the Farm Workers' site, pendejo. Not
even they agree with you:

With the crossing of 526 braceros through the Santa Fe
Street Bridge Tuesday night, current contracting of
Mexican laborers for work in U.S. farms ended,
official of the National Railways of Mexico reported
Wednesday. The railroad in charge of transporting the
braceros to Juárez from all parts of the state,
disclosed the total number of workers contracted
amounted to 12,127. Of this number, only a few were
sent back after failing to pass their physical
examination at the Bracero Center. (The El Paso Times,
May 30, 1963)

Since you accused *me* of all people of slavery, please also
note on that webpage that the officer in charge of the bracero
program for the US Labor Department called it legalized
slavery. This is your idea of a good thing?

> That's when the amnessty program started for the illegals

Ipse dixit. That's in contrast to the information from the
Farm Workers' site and from all of recorded history.

> and it wasn't President Reagan who started it.

Who said he did?

> There have been many presidents before him and many after
> him that have amnesty or programs for illegals rendering
> those arguments dead.

Name one other president who's signed such a law granting
amnesty to illegal aliens.

> The legal system and all the social services have conformed
> to that fact

Bullshit. The legal system has forced social services to
conform on specious "equality" grounds (NOT on economic
grounds), but social service programs and school districts
*cannot* keep up with the demands placed upon them by such
rulings. One of the links I gave you was to an eight year-old
article about the strains on Medicaid and AFDC due to illegal
immigration. Back in 1995, one in every five recipients was
here illegally. That means, if common sense were to prevail,
we could save 20% of what we pay on such services if we
stopped paying people who break our immigration laws. Add to
that compulsory education for children who should be at home
in Mexico, which affects 100% of illegal children -- not just
the ones whose parents receive assistance. State governments,
especially along the border, are overwhelmed. The burden on
citizens and legal residents is tremendous. That's not
conformity, it's slavery. It's also not doing what you
initially claimed with respect to Social Security. If illegals
are allowed to pay into and receive such benefits, it will
surely fail sooner than later.

¿Comprende o no todavia?

> that the illegal will in time become legal and not deported.

Ipse dixit. Again, I remind you of the title of the act
President Reagan signed into law. It was the Immigration
*Reform* and *Control* Act of 1986. The Congress *promised*
that amnesty would be a one-time shot and then the immigration
laws would be vigorously enforced. The Democrats got their
amnesty, but their control has been limited to the requirement
that employers hire only U.S. citizens, Nationals of the
United States, or Aliens who are authorized to work in the
United States and to verify the employment eligibility of
every employee hired after November 6, 1986. According to YOU,
employers needn't follow that law.

> That is why he has rights as if he is deported he has no US
> rights in Mexico.

Talking out of your ass.

> The Unions are considered special interest groups by the
> Republicans

They are special interest groups. They form PACs, they
contribute to campaigns, and they run advertisements on behalf
of candidates and issues.

> and most Unions have never given their support to them.

Why did Reagan get so much union support in '80 AND '84?

> Ask Gov S who attacked every specials interest group "Union"
> and won't talk to any.

I can try to respond to that if you'll rephrase it in
coherent syntax.

> Reagan was one of the most anti-Union pres you could want.

He was, and remains, a member of a very large and influential
union. He also served as that union's president.

> He was big business

No, he was an actor who got into politics.

> gave the rich everything they wanted,

No, they were still taxed. They paid, and still do, more than
their "fair share."

http://www.ntu.org/links/FAQs/whopaysincometaxes.php3

> sprinkle down economics.

You don't understand economics, so explaining Dr Laffer's
curve to you is probably pointless. What I will say (that you
may comprehend) is you, too, believe in "trickle down" -- it's
just that you think government is more efficient than the
private sector. You want more immigration to stuff more
revenues into bankrupt entitlement programs that are
inherently un-fixable. At least our experiences with JFK,
Reagan, and Bush-43 prove that decreasing tax rates have
macroeconomic benefits which lead to microeconomic
improvement.

> To say he was proUnion is stupid.

Then why did he serve as president of one for six years,
including FIVE CONSECUTIVE TERMS? He was president of
SAG during from 1947-1952, and again in 1959-1960. He
had the support of many unions including the Teamsters,
and many individuals in unions that didn't endorse him,
in 1980 and 1984.

http://tinyurl.com/w4tc

Your allegation, like everything else you've written,
remains unproven.

[Robert]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:SWPvb.29989$Ek.4890@twister.austin.rr.com...
> pendejo estupido wrote:
> > Your responses are getting more silly
>
> Funny, I back mine up with links to sites that support my
> claims; you continue to spew shit straight out of your ass
> without any kind of support at all..
>
> > so theres no point in taking it to an 8 year olds level.
>
> Is that your age? I thought you said you marched with RFK
> and Chavez.
>
> > There have many programs including taking many mexican
> > nationals under
the
> > "bracero program"
>
> The 1940s were a long time ago. The bracero program only
> came about because of US involvement in WWII. There was a
> serious shortage of labor. The bracero program was abandoned
> by the early 1960s. It was replaced by illegal immigration.
> A bracero didn't become a US citizen; he was still a Mexican
> citizen.

As I said he was a Mexican citizen and you have all these
excuses. WWII was over long ago and working are still to this
present day going and finding jobs in the fields. Those early
days, there were no borders as people came and went as they
pleased so it was an active program to obtain mexicans for
work. The need is still there. You still refuse to tell me why
presidents, instead of reading all your stuff about the great
drain on this economy doesn't deport illegals but time after
time has made them legal. This entire thread was started by
racist remarks about "immigrants" starting a hepatitis
outbreak. Instead of stating the facts that people eating at a
Mexican restaurant become ill. They don't know if it was the
onions. They don't know if it was a handling problem but one
thing is for sure and that is you Conservative Republicans
will always blame it on minorities and then search the whole
country for conservative minorities and appoint them to the
Supreme court or administrative jobs in the Bush AD. At the
same time killing affirmative action problems and any program
aimed at helping minorities.

> US Labor Department called it legalized slavery. This is
> your idea of a good thing?

I never said it was good or bad only stating the facts and one
big fact is that workers are needed.
>
> > and it wasn't President Reagan who started it. The legal
> > system and all the social services have conformed to
> > that fact
>
> Bullshit. The legal system has forced social services to
> conform on specious "equality" grounds (NOT on economic
> grounds),

The courts said as long as he is in the US he has the right to
an education or are you saying that once the child of an
illegal enters school he can not be deported? The only law the
illegal is breaking is the one of not possessing legal
documents for residency and that is by intent ie by law ie by
the constitution which covers "all" individuals on US soil.
You can change the consitution if you didn't know. With all
this great super drain and great national security risks all
one has to do is change the constitution. Change the
consitution myopic. Your next ethnocentric response will be
because illegals have registered to vote and the politicians
are afraid of losing the illegal vote. The constitution is a
living document that reflects the beliefs of the people. All
your excuses are just balony.
>
> Your allegation, like everything else you've written,
> remains unproven.

I am not making allegations but stating the obvious to anyone
who has ever been around that situation of topics dealing
with illegals.
1. Those giving out benefits never check for legal status
residency and even if they know won't call the HS homeland
security department.
2. Those providing medical services even if they know the
person is illegal will not call the HS.
3. Those educators will not call HS.
4. The police will not call HS when confronted with an
illegal.
5. Even when caught the illegal suffers no penalty as he is
simply sent back. So he crosses over again.
6. Employers will not only look the other way but actively
seek cheap low wage workers.
7. Penaltities against employers are never enforced as even
Republican politicians nominated for high Ad jobs have
employed them and forced to turn down nominations.
8. The average person on the street has hired these people
for cheap labor.
9. Most of these people are not in a position to be caught as
they DO NOT USE community resources.
10. They know if they want to stay permanently here that every
ten years or so they will be granted legal status.
11. Not all illegals want to stay here but only want to send
money back home.

You don't have a single point on your side of the argument
that shows 1. illegals are not wanted here and not just the
biased numbers showing the cost of doing business. It is
business that wants them here. It's like city people
complaining about paying millions for a sports stadium and
then the club owners telling the citizens that they will get
millions back through jobs and business generation.

[Robert]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message
news:_4Qvb.29991$Ek.24754@twister.austin.rr.com...
> shithead wrote:
> >>Robert shoots from the hip and never offers evidence for
> >>his outlandish claims. I found the following information
> >>online which supports your recollections.
> >
> > I never said that it was limited to HK residents.
>
> You only addressed HK residents, pendejo.

The article was written in reference to HK and I did not write
it.

> > The press at the time was highlighting Canada's program in
> > relation to HK turnover and not living
in
> > Canada I had no clue as to the complete immigration
> > policies of Canada.
>
> You didn't then and you still don't. You shoot from the hip,
> as I said.
>
> >>In 1993, only about 3,500 out of a total of 33,769 Hong
> >>Kong immigrants entered Canada under the Business
> >>Immigration Program, which means that most of them came
> >>under the Family Class.
> >
> > Again I never said all immigrants came under that program.
> > How can
they?
> > Not everybody has that kind of money.
>
> That's the problem with your STUPID posts, pendejo. You
> made a very specific claim and had nothing with which to
> support it.

My claim was that HK residents had an opportunity to make it
into Canada if they wished for the 100K. The only thing in
dispute is the amount? It was proven true so what are you
talking about? Oh, I suppose 250K makes a whole lot of
difference than 100K. Does the US have such a policy? Can you
buy citizenship here?

The fact is you
> *generalized* about HK residents. Whatever you saw or read
> spotlighted on a program -- ONE program -- with a very
> narrow focus. That program wasn't an attempt to sell
> citizenship to high bidders, but to encourage business
> immigration for those who had their own capital.

I never generalized idiot, as do you really think that giving
100K for entering Canada is the only way to immigrate there?
That's a real laugh and you are really disperate in trying to
prove every little thing I write is wrong.

I have been to Canada a couple of times, B.C.. The people were
great and had a good time. I have been to Texas and let me say
I prefer Canada in terms of people being friendly to tourists.

[Robert]

"usual suspect" <support@our.troops> wrote in message > Which
of my enthnocentricities? I'm from an interracial family.

Oh, sorry I guess that makes it all right to have racist views
then. Maybe you can be nominated to be a supreme court judge
like Clarence Thomas who doesn't want to ask one single
question during oral arguments because he is afraid he might
sound stupid.

> pendejo estupido wrote:
snip the bablings.

Spanish? Use English, you are in America and if you don't like
it then leave and go back to Conservative San Salvado where
they killed nuns to protect US interests.

You say most minorities are conservative, yea sure. You say
that illegal immigrants are the source of all evil, yea sure.
You are in complete denial and if it makes you feel better
psychologically with the brown hoard of millions and millions
coming across the border and listening to political rhetoric
then go for it. There is no serious effort in stopping it
just ask any border patrol agent. Even those conservative
friends of yours with racist views will tell you that. Put
the army at the border or do this or do that and it's all lip
service to shutup your right wing friends. Yea Bush is from
Texas and knows the problem first hand so immigration
problems are a thing of the past. He will have it stopped
immediately. All that money stolen by illegals and services.
What a fool you are with your beliefs. He hasn't done one
single thing to stop it.

[Robert]

Let me finish you guys off here.

There is no criminal penalty for crossing the border
illegally. NO CRIMINAL PENALTY. If you get a single parking
ticket then you have just paid more than the combined sum of
millions and millions of what illegals have paid. All they do
is send them back from where they came from, free of charge.
That will teach them a lesson. Please tell me what other crime
on the books do you see this? If you steal, can you give
whatever back and say forget it? We Americans think this is
such an non crime that there is no penalties for
it. How do you explain that under the equal protection clause?
iu. Conservative says,"You commit the crime, you serve the
time". You have to take it seriously as the will of the
American people came up with the three strike law and put
people away for life. A guy steals a slice of a pizza and
he was put away for life because he strong armed a guy for
it. What usual suspect and others have said here is just
plain bull. It is racist in origin in which the courts
have clearly found "equal protection" rights. The citizens
have not changed the laws because it is not in their favor
to do so as they benefit too much from the cheap labor.
The will of the American people has spoken and Bush will
not do anything but grant amnesty or come up with another
program giving the same as other presidents have done.