AMERICA

[katrina]

A Somali arrives in Minneapolis as a new immigrant to the United States. He stops the first person he sees walking down the street and says, "Thank you Mr. American for letting me in this country!" But the passer-by says "You are mistaken, I am Mexican."

The man goes on and encounters another passer-by. "Thank you for having such a beautiful country here in America!" The person says, "I no American, I Vietnamese."

The new arrival walks further, and the next person he sees he stops, shakes his hand and says, "Thank you for the wonderful America!" That person puts up his hand and says, "I am from Middle East, I am not an American!"

He finally sees a nice lady and asks suspiciously, "Are you an American?" She says, "No, I am from Russia!" So he is puzzled, and asks her, "Where are all the Americans?"

The Russian lady looks at her watch, shrugs, and says... "Probably at work."

 

[Mike]

A Somali arrives in Minneapolis as a new immigrant to the United States. He stops the first person he sees walking down the street and says, "Thank you Mr. American for letting me in this country!" But the passer-by says "You are mistaken, I am Mexican."

The man goes on and encounters another passer-by. "Thank you for having such a beautiful country here in America!" The person says, "I no American, I Vietnamese."

The new arrival walks further, and the next person he sees he stops, shakes his hand and says, "Thank you for the wonderful America!" That person puts up his hand and says, "I am from Middle East, I am not an American!"

He finally sees a nice lady and asks suspiciously, "Are you an American?" She says, "No, I am from Russia!" So he is puzzled, and asks her, "Where are all the Americans?"

The Russian lady looks at her watch, shrugs, and says... "Probably at work."

Funny, but sad at the same time.

Question: What happens when the "Melting Pot" gets full?

 

[ranchwife]

good question, Mike!!!! :? :? :?

 

[Sierraman]

What happens when the melting pot gets full?-

Let's see, I guess you take off the lid and it goes back down a little, like it does with the foam from boiling potatoes. Or maybe you take some out to cool for fudge. Separate it into 2 pots. Or maybe even, it's all done once its full.
My geography teacher kept telling the class that America is land of immigrants. No one is a true native to America. I could have wrung her neck. Every country is full of people that are not natives, just a lot of them are so far back. Only one country, the origin of creation and life, has true natives. >wring< >wring<

Question 2: Why don't we finally close our borders to immigrants. I have nothing against people not from America, but I do have something against us letting so many in.

 

[Steve]

I would easily support a 5 year closing, to allow time to deport all the current illigals and stop the increadible abuse of the current system,

 

[DOC HARRIS]

I would easily support a 5 year closing, to allow time to deport all the current illigals and stop the increadible abuse of the current system,

Wahoo - Stevereno! My sweet, kind little mother of my three sons has said those very words for 6 years - no - - 8 years. I have agreed with her for the same length of time! It's PAST time!

 

[DOC HARRIS]

I would easily support a 5 year closing, to allow time to deport all the current illigals and stop the increadible abuse of the current system,

Wahoo - Stevereno! My sweet, kind little mother of my three sons has said those very words for 6 years - no - - 8 years. I have agreed with her for the same length of time! It's PAST time!

Sorry - make that 14 years!

 

[katrina]

You guys will be called isolationist and bigots if your not careful! :wink: :roll:

 

[mp.freelance]

As long as both parties vie for hispanic votes and companies are willing to hire illegals to cut costs, no immigration reform is possible. Even if we build a 30-foot-tall barrier between U.S. and Mexico, the illegals would keep coming as long as the jobs are here.

It's pretty much an open secret that illegals are preferred for certain jobs. Around my parts, there are virtually no Causasian landscapers, fast food workers, or berry pickers. These are all jobs that kids and teenagers used to do, and things were just fine, so I hate the currently popular argument that we depend on illegals to fill low-paying jobs.

 

[alabama]

We will still have to let the mexicans in to do the hard work. All the ones that use to do it around here just draw a check and don't work. as long as we have to pay the mexicans to do the work they will come looking for work. I would rather keep the mexicans. At least they will work. That is more than i can say for a lot of americans.

 

[TXTibbs]

If you knew the numbers of mexicans coming across the border every day you'd prolly just **** yourselves. My friend who has a lease ranch down by Juno, Texas said that she was camping there one night and in the moon light she counted several hundred...i forget the exact number but it was something like 4-500 of them buggers coming across the border just on her lease ranch in one night!!!!! It looks like a foot highway down there in some places. Her lease ranch as the crow flys is prolly maybe 10 miles from Mexico if that. anyway its enough to make you sick. not sure what you do about it tho. They claim they are stepping up the border patrol, but **** how can they keep up with numbers like that coming across each day....and that was just on one ranch!!! imagine the entire Rio Grande how many come across in a days time!!!! Thousands!!! yikes!!

 

[Sierraman]

Y'all heard about Vicente Fox's pamphlets that tell Mexican illegals how to survive in the Arizona/NM desert, so that they can make it to AMerica through that route. Yeeps! He likes them coming though. When they do, they make money to send back to Mexico. It's money for him when Mexicans live in America.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Y'all heard about Vicente Fox's pamphlets that tell Mexican illegals how to survive in the Arizona/NM desert, so that they can make it to AMerica through that route. Yeeps! He likes them coming though. When they do, they make money to send back to Mexico. It's money for him when Mexicans live in America.

It is a sad commentary that all of the above posts regarding WHY the illegals(UNLAWFULS!) are still coming across like flies is true. I am as upset about those facts as anyone - however if you would think what would be the results to MANY industries in the US if we were to absolutely stop the influx of illegals - - really give some thought to it - - the entire country would be in BIG DOO-DOO! I deplore that fact, and it aggravates me to say it - but it is true.. And how LONG has this problem been going on??? How many Liberally-DOMINATED Democrat CONGRESSES - House of Representatives AND Senate - been propounding - "We Must be FAIR - we must take care of the entire World because - because - because - - - the POOR chirrun of the World have nothing to eat - an on and on and on?" How long, Oh Lord - how long??

This is an ABSOLUTELY TRUE story! Many years ago in the Los Angeles Area where I had my practice I had a patient who immigrated (legally) from Chile (South America). After we had gotten to know each other for a few weeks, he told me that his family and friends in Chile were furious with him because he had not sent them handsful of Diamonds, Rubys, Emeralds, Pearls - Gold Nuggets - - even CASH that they absolutely believed was laying around in the streets and gutters of the Land of the Free and Rich - they wanted their "SHARE", and he could NOT convince them that that was a dream and that there was not precious gems laying around on the ground! He had a hard time convincing me that his people really believed that, but he swore to God that is was true. THIS is the kind of crap the US is facing, with the help of the disagreeable LEFT Wing Liberal Democrats! You confront them with those situations and they, of course, would - - -what? - RIGHT! - Ricochet! Change the subject. "Well, That is not the question. THIS is the question!"

CUT ME SOME SLACK! DON'T GET ME STARTED!!

 

[Anonymous]

It appears that the loopholes and gaps allowed in CAFTA will open up the entire country to immigrants from all Central America-- TXTibbs- if/when this passes, there won't be hundreds a nite it will be thousands- and with the way its written we may not be able to do anything about it :? ....

With these so called crossborder trade in services exemptions-- Which border do you think they will want to cross to work in??? :???: :?

------------------------------------------------
June 30, 2005



The Honorable Rob Portman

U.S. Trade Representative

600 Seventeenth Street NW, Room 215

Washington, DC 20508



Dear Representative Portman,



I am writing in reference to my concerns about provisions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. As negotiated, I am concerned that CAFTA will do more than just phase out tariffs and open new markets.



Buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of "cross-border trade in services" that I believe will effectively give people from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic a de facto right to work in the United States – provided they are employees of a foreign service sector company. In fact, after reading these provisions I am beginning to believe that CAFTA is more of an immigration accord than it is a trade agreement.



I realize that there is language in Chapter 11 that stipulates that the agreement imposes no "obligation on a party with respect to a national seeking access to its employment market." And while that may be technically true with regard to a foreign individual, the agreement does vest foreign employers with certain rights, and one would presume that these foreign employers will have foreign employees. It is this latter language in the agreement with which I have grave concerns.



These immigration provisions are cloaked in the "service agreement" section, and are often referred to in trade jargon as "Mode 4 service delivery" provisions. Chapter 11.14 (c) of the agreement, for example, reads "Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service…by a national of a party in the territory of another party." Chapter 11.8.2 goes on to stipulate that parties to the agreement must take care to ensure that "measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services," and that domestic regulations are, "not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service."



Mr. Portman, the way I read these sections, a foreign company could challenge our immigration laws under CAFTA as restricting their rights under Chapter 11. They could argue that these laws impede their ability to access the U.S. service sector, and the international tribunals might very well agree – ruling that our caps on non-immigrant visas or even the visa requirements themselves are 'unnecessary barriers to trade' that act as 'restrictions on the supply of a service.' Such a ruling could place Congress in a position of having to change our immigration laws, or face trade sanctions.



I also am aware of the "side letter" signed by the member countries "clarifying" that nothing in the agreement should be construed to require any member country to change its immigration laws – but the letter is not a part of the underlying agreement, and it will not be taken into consideration by the tribunals which will be "adjudicating" challenges based only on the agreement itself. Numerous "side arrangements" have been made with various Members in return for support for NAFTA, TPA, and even the Singapore and Chile FTA's. The vast majority of these promises, however, have been broken or invalidated under the terms of the agreements.



Mr. Portman, what concerns me more than the decision of your predecessor to include this language in CAFTA is the prospect that CAFTA's service agreement provisions might be a template for future multi-lateral trade agreements. As you may know, I attempted to offer an amendment to the Commerce, Science, Justice, State Appropriations bill that would have restricted the use of funds to negotiate any future trade agreement that would "…increase any limitation on the number of aliens authorized to enter the United States as non-immigrant." The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee vehemently opposed my amendment during floor debate because – in his words – "We are currently in delicate negotiations in the World Trade Organization on market access, and one of the provisions is the question of temporary movement of legal aliens…" I sincerely hope this is not true.



I hope that you can help me understand both why these provisions were included, and whether or not future bilateral and multilateral agreements negotiated by USTR will continue to include these kinds of immigration provisions as the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee indicated they may. It is my hope that we are not headed down that road, and I trust that under your leadership, USTR will not continue to move in this direction.



As you are a former Member, I know that you understand the importance of protecting Congress' exclusive prerogative to regulate immigration policy. I hope we can work together to ensure that this authority is not diluted further in the name of free trade.



Thank you in advance for your assistance, and I look forward to hearing from you.



Sincerely,



Tom Tancredo, M.C.

 

[Anonymous]

Y'all heard about Vicente Fox's pamphlets that tell Mexican illegals how to survive in the Arizona/NM desert, so that they can make it to AMerica through that route. Yeeps! He likes them coming though. When they do, they make money to send back to Mexico. It's money for him when Mexicans live in America.

Mexico's Vicente Fox, in a 2002 address to European elites, was unexpectedly candid about these aims:

"Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes [such as] the future prosperity of North America, and the movement of capital, goods, services, and persons."

During his address, Fox referred to a large impediment to his vision, "what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organizations."

----------

establishment of supra-national organizations- like losing the sovereignty of the United States of America :???: :?

 

[DOC HARRIS]

It appears that the loopholes and gaps allowed in CAFTA will open up the entire country to immigrants from all Central America-- TXTibbs- if/when this passes, there won't be hundreds a nite it will be thousands- and with the way its written we may not be able to do anything about it :? ....

With these so called crossborder trade in services exemptions-- Which border do you think they will want to cross to work in??? :???: :?

------------------------------------------------
June 30, 2005



The Honorable Rob Portman

U.S. Trade Representative

600 Seventeenth Street NW, Room 215

Washington, DC 20508



Dear Representative Portman,



I am writing in reference to my concerns about provisions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. As negotiated, I am concerned that CAFTA will do more than just phase out tariffs and open new markets.



Buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of "cross-border trade in services" that I believe will effectively give people from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic a de facto right to work in the United States – provided they are employees of a foreign service sector company. In fact, after reading these provisions I am beginning to believe that CAFTA is more of an immigration accord than it is a trade agreement.



I realize that there is language in Chapter 11 that stipulates that the agreement imposes no "obligation on a party with respect to a national seeking access to its employment market." And while that may be technically true with regard to a foreign individual, the agreement does vest foreign employers with certain rights, and one would presume that these foreign employers will have foreign employees. It is this latter language in the agreement with which I have grave concerns.



These immigration provisions are cloaked in the "service agreement" section, and are often referred to in trade jargon as "Mode 4 service delivery" provisions. Chapter 11.14 (c) of the agreement, for example, reads "Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service…by a national of a party in the territory of another party." Chapter 11.8.2 goes on to stipulate that parties to the agreement must take care to ensure that "measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services," and that domestic regulations are, "not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service."



Mr. Portman, the way I read these sections, a foreign company could challenge our immigration laws under CAFTA as restricting their rights under Chapter 11. They could argue that these laws impede their ability to access the U.S. service sector, and the international tribunals might very well agree – ruling that our caps on non-immigrant visas or even the visa requirements themselves are 'unnecessary barriers to trade' that act as 'restrictions on the supply of a service.' Such a ruling could place Congress in a position of having to change our immigration laws, or face trade sanctions.



I also am aware of the "side letter" signed by the member countries "clarifying" that nothing in the agreement should be construed to require any member country to change its immigration laws – but the letter is not a part of the underlying agreement, and it will not be taken into consideration by the tribunals which will be "adjudicating" challenges based only on the agreement itself. Numerous "side arrangements" have been made with various Members in return for support for NAFTA, TPA, and even the Singapore and Chile FTA's. The vast majority of these promises, however, have been broken or invalidated under the terms of the agreements.



Mr. Portman, what concerns me more than the decision of your predecessor to include this language in CAFTA is the prospect that CAFTA's service agreement provisions might be a template for future multi-lateral trade agreements. As you may know, I attempted to offer an amendment to the Commerce, Science, Justice, State Appropriations bill that would have restricted the use of funds to negotiate any future trade agreement that would "…increase any limitation on the number of aliens authorized to enter the United States as non-immigrant." The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee vehemently opposed my amendment during floor debate because – in his words – "We are currently in delicate negotiations in the World Trade Organization on market access, and one of the provisions is the question of temporary movement of legal aliens…" I sincerely hope this is not true.



I hope that you can help me understand both why these provisions were included, and whether or not future bilateral and multilateral agreements negotiated by USTR will continue to include these kinds of immigration provisions as the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee indicated they may. It is my hope that we are not headed down that road, and I trust that under your leadership, USTR will not continue to move in this direction.



As you are a former Member, I know that you understand the importance of protecting Congress' exclusive prerogative to regulate immigration policy. I hope we can work together to ensure that this authority is not diluted further in the name of free trade.



Thank you in advance for your assistance, and I look forward to hearing from you.



Sincerely,



Tom Tancredo, M.C.

Oldtimer - There is no question in my mind that we both can remember when life in general was simpler - not complex and convoluted as is almost EVERYTHING today. This CAFTA situation is another example of the frightening - almost terrifying - Political 'Gordian Knot' mess that the United States has lurched and floundered into in the past 15 years! Our customarily meticulous vigilance has been intruded upon by World Political Affairs and our sovereignty has been compromised to the extent that almost every government in the world, being envious and jealous of our possessions and freedom, is opposing us in subliminal ways - CAFTA being one of them - our almost obligatory involvement in the Near East Mess - and we cannot perform Alexander The Great's stratagem of merely 'whacking' that Gordian Knot in half with a sword! 'Our' world today is too inextricable for heroics and rashness. Cool and brilliant heads must prevail - and I am apprehensive about our 'sliding' through unscathed. We are in a squeeze chute that is locked. This VERY EXACT situation that we find ourselves in is what the original idea of the United Nations was purported to preclude! HAH What an insult THAT Satanic maneuver was 58 years ago! And we STILL genuflex to kiss their - - - feet!

I feel that God is watching us and saying "How much longer can I wait for them to WAKE UP?"

DOC HARRIS

p.s. don't get me started!

 

[TXTibbs]

We took Texas away from Mexico once, but now slowly they are taking it back! haha...some of you are prolly willing to let them have it to huh? How come people hate Texans so much? I don't really claim to be a "Texan" since I only lived here 3 years, so don't jump my back!!

 

[Sierraman]

I have only ever lived in Texas. I don't think it's that we're hated. I think people envy us. Texas is so big and great (not that other places aren't we just got more blessings. ) In one movie and a few books I"ve read I've noticed the dumb bricks of the story are Texans. It's just like why people hate America. Envy, jealousy. Jump my back, I know what's really goin' on in your skulls.

 

[Anonymous]

It appears that the loopholes and gaps allowed in CAFTA will open up the entire country to immigrants from all Central America-- TXTibbs- if/when this passes, there won't be hundreds a nite it will be thousands- and with the way its written we may not be able to do anything about it :? ....

With these so called crossborder trade in services exemptions-- Which border do you think they will want to cross to work in??? :???: :?

------------------------------------------------
June 30, 2005



The Honorable Rob Portman

U.S. Trade Representative

600 Seventeenth Street NW, Room 215

Washington, DC 20508



Dear Representative Portman,



I am writing in reference to my concerns about provisions of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. As negotiated, I am concerned that CAFTA will do more than just phase out tariffs and open new markets.



Buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of "cross-border trade in services" that I believe will effectively give people from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic a de facto right to work in the United States – provided they are employees of a foreign service sector company. In fact, after reading these provisions I am beginning to believe that CAFTA is more of an immigration accord than it is a trade agreement.



I realize that there is language in Chapter 11 that stipulates that the agreement imposes no "obligation on a party with respect to a national seeking access to its employment market." And while that may be technically true with regard to a foreign individual, the agreement does vest foreign employers with certain rights, and one would presume that these foreign employers will have foreign employees. It is this latter language in the agreement with which I have grave concerns.



These immigration provisions are cloaked in the "service agreement" section, and are often referred to in trade jargon as "Mode 4 service delivery" provisions. Chapter 11.14 (c) of the agreement, for example, reads "Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service…by a national of a party in the territory of another party." Chapter 11.8.2 goes on to stipulate that parties to the agreement must take care to ensure that "measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services," and that domestic regulations are, "not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service."



Mr. Portman, the way I read these sections, a foreign company could challenge our immigration laws under CAFTA as restricting their rights under Chapter 11. They could argue that these laws impede their ability to access the U.S. service sector, and the international tribunals might very well agree – ruling that our caps on non-immigrant visas or even the visa requirements themselves are 'unnecessary barriers to trade' that act as 'restrictions on the supply of a service.' Such a ruling could place Congress in a position of having to change our immigration laws, or face trade sanctions.



I also am aware of the "side letter" signed by the member countries "clarifying" that nothing in the agreement should be construed to require any member country to change its immigration laws – but the letter is not a part of the underlying agreement, and it will not be taken into consideration by the tribunals which will be "adjudicating" challenges based only on the agreement itself. Numerous "side arrangements" have been made with various Members in return for support for NAFTA, TPA, and even the Singapore and Chile FTA's. The vast majority of these promises, however, have been broken or invalidated under the terms of the agreements.



Mr. Portman, what concerns me more than the decision of your predecessor to include this language in CAFTA is the prospect that CAFTA's service agreement provisions might be a template for future multi-lateral trade agreements. As you may know, I attempted to offer an amendment to the Commerce, Science, Justice, State Appropriations bill that would have restricted the use of funds to negotiate any future trade agreement that would "…increase any limitation on the number of aliens authorized to enter the United States as non-immigrant." The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee vehemently opposed my amendment during floor debate because – in his words – "We are currently in delicate negotiations in the World Trade Organization on market access, and one of the provisions is the question of temporary movement of legal aliens…" I sincerely hope this is not true.



I hope that you can help me understand both why these provisions were included, and whether or not future bilateral and multilateral agreements negotiated by USTR will continue to include these kinds of immigration provisions as the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee indicated they may. It is my hope that we are not headed down that road, and I trust that under your leadership, USTR will not continue to move in this direction.



As you are a former Member, I know that you understand the importance of protecting Congress' exclusive prerogative to regulate immigration policy. I hope we can work together to ensure that this authority is not diluted further in the name of free trade.



Thank you in advance for your assistance, and I look forward to hearing from you.



Sincerely,



Tom Tancredo, M.C.

Oldtimer - There is no question in my mind that we both can remember when life in general was simpler - not complex and convoluted as is almost EVERYTHING today. This CAFTA situation is another example of the frightening - almost terrifying - Political 'Gordian Knot' mess that the United States has lurched and floundered into in the past 15 years! Our customarily meticulous vigilance has been intruded upon by World Political Affairs and our sovereignty has been compromised to the extent that almost every government in the world, being envious and jealous of our possessions and freedom, is opposing us in subliminal ways - CAFTA being one of them - our almost obligatory involvement in the Near East Mess - and we cannot perform Alexander The Great's stratagem of merely 'whacking' that Gordian Knot in half with a sword! 'Our' world today is too inextricable for heroics and rashness. Cool and brilliant heads must prevail - and I am apprehensive about our 'sliding' through unscathed. We are in a squeeze chute that is locked. This VERY EXACT situation that we find ourselves in is what the original idea of the United Nations was purported to preclude! HAH What an insult THAT Satanic maneuver was 58 years ago! And we STILL genuflex to kiss their - - - feet!

I feel that God is watching us and saying "How much longer can I wait for them to WAKE UP?"

DOC HARRIS

p.s. don't get me started!

Doc- A good post-- And boy do I agree with you that things have changed over the years...I love to get on this site and argue with the Canadians (which I truly believe is a great country- but an independent country and not part of any North American country), argue my feelings on free trade and globalization (neither of which have shown me anything positive personally yet) and the way we keep giving up our sovereignty......But beyond this I think we are in an age where we have a whole lot more to worry about - I'm one of those that believe that within the next 2-3 years we will have a nuclear or WMD attack within our country...And some of those Islamic terrorists that will carry it out may already be within our country-some of these events have been in the planning for over 10 years--but that doesn't mean we should lower our Border protectiions and allow more to walk in and carry a few suitcase nukes with them....

I think our President has done a good job on the war on terror and fairly well on Homeland Security- but the one major gap I disagree with him on is his stand to not offend our border and trade neighbors and minority voters by putting in much stricter border and immigration guidelines- I think it will be proven to be disastrous...I hope and pray I'm wrong :?

 

[TXTibbs]

I have only ever lived in Texas. I don't think it's that we're hated. I think people envy us. Texas is so big and great (not that other places aren't we just got more blessings. ) In one movie and a few books I"ve read I've noticed the dumb bricks of the story are Texans. It's just like why people hate America. Envy, jealousy. Jump my back, I know what's really goin' on in your skulls.

nevermind, you answered my question..........its comments like that that make people hate Texuns!!! :roll: :nod: :roll: :nod: :roll:

Texans are always bragging about what they have and they act like they are better than anyone else just because they live in Texas.....that my friends is why most people dislike texas folk. Envy? Some may, but i know people up north that would rather eat worms than associate with Texas. You have a lot of big spaces in Texas and a lot of industry and opportunities, but when it comes to cowboying and ranching....the states of Montana, North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming have you beat!

I don't mean to be picking a fight and that isn't my intention, cause yes I live in Texas now, but just saying what i've seen from my experiences from living here and in South Dakota. There are so many Texans down here that are arrogant and pompass (sp) towards other people and they always boast that they are bigger and better than anyone. Well beleive it or not, but most people don't like braggers and blow hearts, so if you like Texas stay here but don't go trying to tell other people that you are better than they are just because you live here. You might beable to get away with that while your standing on Texas soil, but head north and blow your mouth off and it might just get shoved full of cow **** :wink: . haha. And so many people like yourself Sierraman have never lived any place but Texas, so i really don't see how you have the right to say that other states "envy" Texans. I better shut up...i'm starting to sound like a blow hearted Texan......HA...joking.....have a nice day "ya'll"!! :wink: