U.S. Labor Chief "Illegals Have Right to Fair Wages"

[Guest]

Obama's Labor Chief Hilda L. Solis has released a cute video, paid for with your tax dollars by the way, to inform workers who illegally entered our country that they have a "right" to "fair wages", and that the U.S. Government is prepared to help these illegals to secure their RIGHTS.

This should have be hosted by Rod Serling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owMAs2t2Fo&feature=player_embedded

[Guest]

"Whether documented or not." !!! ???? Richie, you shouldn't post those fake, madeup right-ding-bat-wing things! And if it is true, what is the matter with you. Are you saying big bad business people have a right to screw poor people? Even if they are illegally in this country. Are you unAmerican wanting to trample on the little person. If the government can get them registered to vote and in a union, what's wrong with that.

[Guest]

They don't belong here. What is so hard to understand about that?

If they were not here they wouldn't get screwed. Any company who hires them should be fined and the CEO jailed even if they are not screwing them.

It's the law!

Yoda

[Guest]

Sorry, I got lost there for a minute. Things that are happening in America are so unbelievable to me, I look around and think I've fallen down the rabbit hole.

So this is really the "Turn in Your Employer, and we'll give you amnesty and sign you up in a union" ad. Or, "Help Us Beat Back the Big Corporations" ad. Is it really a surprise to anyone that labor unions best friend Hilda Solis would do this. Solis is from California (surprise, surprise) and served in the House before Obama appointed her to head the DOL. Andy Stern spoke highly of her record supporting unions.

I'd like to know by whose authority she runs these ads. Obama and his gang don't even pretend to follow the rules anymore. Am I going to wake up tomorrow and have a new immigration law without a vote by Congress?



Sorry Yoda, I was being facecious with my previous post.

[Guest]

LOL!! BK; thanks for the laughs. Sometimes you have to find humor in the crap that goes on. I was waiting for our liberal contingent to post comments similar to your first post, and the fact that you did just cracks me up.

[Guest]

I would bet you won't hear from our liberal contingent on this... even they know how far they can argue without making themselves look totally and completely moronic!

[Guest]

I would bet you won't hear from our liberal contingent on this... even they know how far they can argue without making themselves look totally and completely moronic!

This is a progressive concept so Liberals will agree with it. Liberals buy votes which is another reason they agree with this.

[Guest]

Personally I think a *real* left-winger would keep quiet about it. They probably know that saying "we should have a law protecting the wallets of those who break the law" sounds pretty silly.

[Guest]

Personally I think a *real* left-winger would keep quiet about it. They probably know that saying "we should have a law protecting the wallets of those who break the law" sounds pretty silly.

Silly?; the point is, apparently the U.S. Labor Chief believes we already have this law and is prepared to bring the weight of the government to bear to protect illegals citizens "rights".

[Guest]

Ok, I finally had a chance to watch the video.

I'm speechless. "Whether documented or not"?!?!?!?!?!?

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer and "unlicensed pharmacist".

I want to see a followup to this put out by the Border Patrol where they say "Yup - it's confidential - don't worry about that silly 'caller ID' thingy"

Here's my message to the Secretary of Labor.

No - they do NOT have a right to be paid fairly because the very precept of the situation is ILLEGAL. They are not allowed to be there in the first place!

What part of "illegal" does she NOT understand. Oh, I get it, the part that replaced it with Newspeak "undocumented".

[Guest]

djplong, I am very proud of you. First for watching the video (even though you did respond without watching it the first time). And secondly, for getting the point. Keep your eyes opened and your mind opened.

[Guest]

Ok, I finally had a chance to watch the video.

I'm speechless. "Whether documented or not"?!?!?!?!?!?

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer and "unlicensed pharmacist".

I want to see a followup to this put out by the Border Patrol where they say "Yup - it's confidential - don't worry about that silly 'caller ID' thingy"

Here's my message to the Secretary of Labor.

No - they do NOT have a right to be paid fairly because the very precept of the situation is ILLEGAL. They are not allowed to be there in the first place!

What part of "illegal" does she NOT understand. Oh, I get it, the part that replaced it with Newspeak "undocumented".

It doesn't stop there, Djplong, concerning our laws aimed at illegals. Although Arizona's new immigration law is less onerous that the existing non-enforced Federal Law, Obama has vowed to sue Arizona and Mexico has signed on. It gets crazier and crazier.

http://www.examiner.com/x-46228-Atlanta-Immigration-Examiner~y2010m6d22-Mexico-signs-on-with-the-US-government-to-sue-Arizona

P.S. I appreciate that your posts are almost never a knee-jerk reaction. If I had to guess, I would say you would, maybe, classify yourself as what is sometimes known as a JFK Democrat. Am I correct?

[Guest]

I don't understand where ILLEGAL imigrants have ANY rights except the right to leave. Richie, you made a comment in post #9 about illegal citizens. That is incorrect. Citizens would be legal, aliens are illegal.

[Guest]

On the Arizona law, I've always thought that the devil was in the "reasonable suspicion" clause. If police abused that, there would be justifiable court cases. As long as the cops can back up the reasons for their ID requests, it shouldn't be an issue. But I fear that one bad apple - all it will take is one overzealous cop or one cop overstrained to the breaking point - and there'll be a legal furball exploding.

I believe that illegals have SOME rights. For example, they have the right to have their Miranda rights read to them before we deport them. No reason we can't treat them like civilized human beings. But, make no mistake - DEPORT THEM.

As far as what I categorize myself? I don't have a label that I have any affectation towards. You're correct in that I like JFK, if pressed I'd have to say Thomas Jefferson was my 'hero'. There are some aspects of both major parties that I find ok and other aspects that, somehow, "turning my stomach" doesn't seem to describe my feelings appropriately.

In general, I'm more fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Let's spend money in government EFFECTIVELY and keep a "live and let live" attitude with anyone who's not breaking the law. If you have a law you think is bad, there's civil protest and petitioning for change. There's a proper way to do things. Above all, don't lie when trying to make the sell. It makes you look worse and people will immediately dismiss what you have to say, no matter what else may have been good in your message.

Sigh.. I'm rambling off to a tangent again....

[Guest]

I don't understand where ILLEGAL imigrants have ANY rights except the right to leave. Richie, you made a comment in post #9 about illegal citizens. That is incorrect. Citizens would be legal, aliens are illegal.

LOL; I don't know why I inserted "citizens" into that post. I swear it wasn't a Freudian Slip. I need a proof-reader and I will be accepting applications shortly:-)

[Guest]

This is off topic, but occasionally I have to rant about this. :cus:

We are from Canada and we own a house in TV. We are retired and not seeking a job or any benefits from the USA. We are seasonal residents, due to the fact that the US Government allows us to stay in the USA 182 days in a calendar year. No more. Brits are the same.

If we stay longer than 182 days in our home in TV (on which we pay taxes 12 months a year), we would become illegal aliens. Subject to deportation and possibly never allowed to re enter the US.

I always thought that North America was one big happy family. Canada has lost 148 military personnel fighting in Afganistan.

I'm just saying.

[Guest]

This is off topic, but occasionally I have to rant about this. :cus:

We are from Canada and we own a house in TV. We are retired and not seeking a job or any benefits from the USA. We are seasonal residents, due to the fact that the US Government allows us to stay in the USA 182 days in a calendar year. No more. Brits are the same.

If we stay longer than 182 days in our home in TV (on which we pay taxes 12 months a year), we would become illegal aliens. Subject to deportation and possibly never allowed to re enter the US.

I always thought that North America was one big happy family. Canada has lost 148 military personnel fighting in Afganistan.

I'm just saying.

Are the residency laws different in Canada? Can I buy a house and stay in Canada indefinitely while remaining a U.S. citizen?

[Guest]

Are the residency laws different in Canada? Can I buy a house and stay in Canada indefinitely while remaining a U.S. citizen?

The residency laws are different. Richie, I'm not sure if your question is serious, but yes, you probably could buy a house in Canada and stay here indefinitely while remaining a U.S. citizen. Canada loves immigrants and refugees. We give them free health benefits and welfare as soon as they arrive. (Not saying that's a good thing; but that's the way it is).

While the USA is a "melting pot" and expects immigrants to adapt to American ways, Canada protects everyone's cultural identity and heritage. Which, of course, is is extremely expensive. (Not saying that's a good thing; but that's the way it is).

Our official second language is French, but we have more people that speak Italian and Mandarin than French! Being an interpreter in Canada is a very worthwhile job!

P.S. Richie, I'm not sure if your post implied that I want to own a house in Florida while retaining my Canadian citizenship. I'd be real happy to become a U.S. citizen! However there are no grounds under which I can apply for citizenship.

[Guest]

Barefoot, I loved your response. It was straightforward and on-point. The whole question/answer between you and Richie got me to thinking.

Population of North America: 514,600,000
United States: 303,606,020
Mexico: 106,535,000
Canada: 33,163,000
Guatemala: 13,354,000
Cuba: 11,268,000

Each year about 170,000 people become new citizens of Canada.

I looked on the Canada government website under About being a permanent resident of Canada, Immigrating to Canada and Becoming a Canadian citizen.

The section on Canadian citizenship is very interesting. Following is information about becoming a Canadian citizen.

Age
You must be at least 18 years old to apply for Canadian citizenship.

To apply for citizenship for a child under 18, make sure the following conditions are met:

the person applying is the child’s parent, adoptive parent or legal guardian
the child is a permanent resident, but does not need to have lived in Canada for three years and
one parent is already a Canadian citizen or is applying to become a citizen at the same time. This also applies to adoptive parents.
Permanent resident status
To become a Canadian citizen, you must have permanent resident status in Canada, and that status must not be in doubt. This means you must not be the subject of an immigration investigation, an immigration inquiry or a removal order (an order from Canadian officials to leave Canada).

Time lived in Canada
To become Canadian citizens, adults must have lived in Canada for at least three years (1,095 days) in the past four years before applying. Children do not need to meet this requirement.

You may be able to count time you spent in Canada before you became a permanent resident if that time falls within the four-year period.

Use the citizenship calculator to find out if you have lived in Canada long enough to apply for citizenship.

Language abilities
Canada has two official languages—English and French. You need to have adequate knowledge of one of these two languages. You must know enough English or French to understand other people and for them to understand you.

Criminal history (prohibitions)
You cannot become a citizen if you:

have been convicted of an indictable (criminal) offence or an offence under the Citizenship Act in the three years before you apply
are currently charged with an indictable offence or an offence under the Citizenship Act
are in prison, on parole or on probation
are under a removal order (have been ordered by Canadian officials to leave Canada)
are under investigation for, are charged with, or have been convicted of a war crime or a crime against humanity or
have had your Canadian citizenship taken away in the past five years.
If you are on probation or are charged with an offence and are awaiting trial, you should wait until after the probation has ended or the trial is over to apply for citizenship.

If you have spent time on probation, on parole or in prison in the last four years, you may not meet the residence requirement for citizenship.

Time in prison or on parole does not count as residence in Canada. Time on probation also does not count as residence in Canada if you were convicted of an offence. If you have spent time on probation from a conditional discharge, it may be counted toward residence. For details, contact the Call Centre.

Knowledge of Canada
To become a citizen, you must understand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, such as the right and responsibility to vote in elections. You must also have an understanding of Canada’s history, values, institutions and symbols.

The information you need to know is in our free.




http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become-eligibility.asp

According to information from the site as a permanent resident, you and your dependants have the right :

To receive most social benefits that Canadian citizens receive, including health care coverage.
To live, work or study anywhere in Canada.
To apply for Canadian citizenship.
To protection under Canadian law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You must pay taxes, and respect all Canadian laws at the federal, provincial and municipal levels.

What permanet residents cannot do :

Vote or run for political office.
Hold certain jobs that have a high-level security clearance requirement.
Remain in Canada if you are convicted of a serious criminal offence and have been told to leave the country.




There are six categories of immigration in Canada according to imformation on the website. These categories are Skilled workers and professionals; Quebec-selected skilled workers; Canadian Experience Class; Investors, entrepreneurs and self-employed people; Provincial nominees and Sponsoring your family.

Each of these categories requires you have a job, a promise of a job and knowledge of either English or French. The Quebec Province section for Federal Skilled Workers is separate from the main Canada website info.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.asp

[Guest]

The residency laws are different. Richie, I'm not sure if your question is serious, but yes, you probably could buy a house in Canada and stay here indefinitely while remaining a U.S. citizen. Canada loves immigrants and refugees. We give them free health benefits and welfare as soon as they arrive. (Not saying that's a good thing; but that's the way it is).

While the USA is a "melting pot" and expects immigrants to adapt to American ways, Canada protects everyone's cultural identity and heritage. Which, of course, is is extremely expensive. (Not saying that's a good thing; but that's the way it is).

Our official second language is French, but we have more people that speak Italian and Mandarin than French! Being an interpreter in Canada is a very worthwhile job!

P.S. Richie, I'm not sure if your post implied that I want to own a house in Florida while retaining my Canadian citizenship. I'd be real happy to become a U.S. citizen! However there are no grounds under which I can apply for citizenship.

I didn't mean anything snarky by my question, I was just curious. I see BK took the time to find out loads of info, I thank both of you for the response and effort.

[Guest]

I didn't mean anything snarky by my question, I was just curious. I see BK took the time to find out loads of info, I thank both of you for the response and effort.

Wowser, BK knows way more about Canadian immigration that I do. Well done, BK!

Richie, my whole point was this:

The US economy is struggling. Every year thousands (if not millions) of Canadian retirees travel to Florida. (Brits also). After 182 days they must leave the US. These retirees don't require any US "handouts". They travel to the US with health care insurance and they put a lot of money into the economy of the State of Florida. Forcing retirees to leave the country after 182 days seems ridiculous.

When we're in FLorida, we shop and eat out and buy gas and food and furniture and so far we've bought two houses ..... you get the point. Anyway .. retirees spend lots of money having fun.

I'm not suggesting that retirees contribution to the economy of FLorida is going to turn the US recession around!! But I am suggesting that the US Government should offer a "Retiree Visa" to allow retirees to stay longer in the US and thereby reap the benefit of their spending.

I apologize for hijacking this thread. :blahblahblah: It's just a "hot button" of mine because I love my Village friends and miss them terribly when I'm in exile.

[Guest]

immigration. Just like every other nation on the planet. We however, different from every other nation on the planet choose to not enforce the rules/laws for certain VOTER groupings.

Does anybody think for one minute you could get into any country ILLEGALY and demand what they are here in the USA? Absolutely not. They would have your butt locked up in jail in a heartbeat.

The politics of the illegal immigration issue are so disgusting it is pathetic. The permissive pacifists, lethargic, do nothing, do not rock the boat, bleeding heart, special interest, lawyers and Washington lawmakers are willing to look the other way......barf......I am not. They need to do it right just like our families did in years past. NO EXCEPTIONS for VOTES.

btk

[Guest]

Can't argue that Barefoot. Excellent post. Concise and too the point. You should stop by political more often. I don't think there are any rules on citizenship or how long you can stay.

[Guest]

On the Arizona law, I've always thought that the devil was in the "reasonable suspicion" clause. If police abused that, there would be justifiable court cases. As long as the cops can back up the reasons for their ID requests, it shouldn't be an issue. But I fear that one bad apple - all it will take is one overzealous cop or one cop overstrained to the breaking point - and there'll be a legal furball exploding.

I believe that illegals have SOME rights. For example, they have the right to have their Miranda rights read to them before we deport them. No reason we can't treat them like civilized human beings. But, make no mistake - DEPORT THEM.

As far as what I categorize myself? I don't have a label that I have any affectation towards. You're correct in that I like JFK, if pressed I'd have to say Thomas Jefferson was my 'hero'. There are some aspects of both major parties that I find ok and other aspects that, somehow, "turning my stomach" doesn't seem to describe my feelings appropriately.

In general, I'm more fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Let's spend money in government EFFECTIVELY and keep a "live and let live" attitude with anyone who's not breaking the law. If you have a law you think is bad, there's civil protest and petitioning for change. There's a proper way to do things. Above all, don't lie when trying to make the sell. It makes you look worse and people will immediately dismiss what you have to say, no matter what else may have been good in your message.

Sigh.. I'm rambling off to a tangent again....

You often say you are a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.

You appear to be bright, but your position here is utterly and hopelessly impossible.

To be a social liberal you require a big government with high taxes which makes it impossible to be a fiscal conservative.

If you don't agree with me please explain how your mixed position is mathematically feasible.

[Guest]

I don't know what it takes to become a US citizen, but we know a couple who live in England and visit the US several times a year. They usually stay for about 6 weeks at a time and then go back to GB. They would make wonderful citizens of the US, but unfortunately they want to do it legally. They have the income to sustain themselves, but the US won't let them. Crazy isn't it?

[Guest]

Well, this may not be an issue if Obama gets is way, according to Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/source-administration-weighing-unilateral-legalization-illegal-immigrants/

[Guest]

Can't argue that Barefoot. Excellent post. Concise and too the point. You should stop by political more often. I don't think there are any rules on citizenship or how long you can stay.

Thanks BK. I do enjoy Political, it is way more interesting than hearing more debates about roundabouts. I steer clear of posting because I'm not smart enough to win any battles! I have lots of opinions about Obama, but they are best kept in a box under my bed.

There may not be any rules in Political on citizenship or how long you can stay, but I've seen peeps get tarred and feathered and run out of town! :22yikes:

[Guest]

You often say you are a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.

You appear to be bright, but your position here is utterly and hopelessly impossible.

To be a social liberal you require a big government with high taxes which makes it impossible to be a fiscal conservative.

If you don't agree with me please explain how your mixed position is mathematically feasible.

Please respond Djplong !!!!

[Guest]

I have to agree with cashman that it is an oxymoron to say you are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It is impossible to be fiscally conservative and support social liberalism.

A few examples of the "I'm a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal," contadictions to think about from a financial standpoint:
-Poltically correctness in racial profiling and Homeland Security measures at airport.
-The war on poverty.
-Abortion and/or Planned Parenthood versus population growth.
-Protecting children.
-Protecting pets.
-Protecting Americans from themselves with health regulations, vehicle regulations, building regulations, sun tanning regulations, et al (federal guidelines and a bureacracy and government agency for everything from A to Z.)

I'm not speaking for djplong, but I had some friends who said the same statement and when they really discussed the matter, it turns out their main "social liberal" stance came into protecting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered rights and the right of a woman to have an abortion.

http://www.redstate.com/ausonius/2010/02/27/%E2%80%9Ci%E2%80%99m-a-fiscal-conservative-but-a-social-liberal%E2%80%9D-the-epitaph-for-america%E2%80%99s-future/

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/09/Obama-to-Spend-103-Trillion-on-Welfare-Uncovering-the-Full-Cost-of-Means-Tested-Welfare-or-Aid-to-the-Poor

[Guest]

Originally, in the days of JFK, I think that being Socially Liberal really was about Women's Rights and Minority Rights and extending the reasoned helping hand to the truly needy.

It's evolved over the years, incrementally, to the massive Entitlement Class that many rail against today.

[Guest]

This is ridiculous the notion that people who steal into America due to the Federal Government's failure to keep them out, should receive fair wages is really just a ploy for the progressives to get them social security numbers after passing some executive order to give them immunity, so that they can help pay for obama's stupidity.

[Guest]

Please respond Djplong !!!!

are you?

[Guest]

There is only one objective in these gyrations.....Buying the votes...
second behind that is the give away programs.

In an era of entitlement, me too, where's mine, bail out, give aways, permissive pacifism, don't rock the boat stupidity for those who are born and rooted here....the government wants to swing the door wide and ad to the disturbing list above all the perverts, rapists, drug running, free loaders from Mexico and anywhere else in the world smart enough to go to Mexico first and then just stroll across the open border with the rest of the dregs.

And then there is the dilution factor. Add to the voter base as many non thinking, non contributing, uneducated thugs and criminals and you get a more trainable constituency.

Yes, I know there are some good people in the crowd. Let 'em immigrate according to the laws of the land.

How about amnesty with a hook? First they register. Then they have one year to learn the language. Then they have 5 more years to go through the education routine to become a US citizen. Of course they shall pay taxes from day one like the rest of us.

If they or their families don't like the new rules encourage then....no expedite them back to the great country they are running from.

btk

[Guest]

BK - I'll answer to the points you raised.

Racial profiling - In general, I'm against it for things like "Driving While Black". However, in the case of terrorism, giving a second look to people who look like terrorists WITHOUT VIOLATING OTHER RIGHTS is just plain smart. One can look at the way Israel protects it's airplanes. The idea of strip-searching granny in a wheechair to 'prove' equality is patently ridiculous.

Abortion - Not sure how that plays into the "can't be fiscally conservative" part of your assertation - and if you don't want to risk starting an abortion flame-war (as threads on that topic can often fall into) I'll understand. However, the overwhelming majority of abortions fall in one category - VERY early term. Without going into too much graphic detail, I've had to clean up after an early term miscarriage that my (now ex) wife had almost 20 years ago. That did nothing to change my views that, that early on, you have a batch of cells. HOWEVER - the idea of being 8 1/2 months pregnant and deciding yoou wanat an abortion, in addition to being an almost nonexistent situation, repulses me (as in "sorry, you had your chance to change your mind for some time way back when")

The war on poverty - In the government, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. P. J. O'Roourke said it many years ago - you can't eliminate poverty by giving people money. A small social safety net is one thing - with limits. Generational welfare killed more initiative than anything I can think of. Welfare reform was a much-needed step in the right direction.

- Protecting children. Can you explain what you mean?

- Protecting pets. I'm going to assume you mean valuing pets more than people as opposed to simple anti-cruelty laws. Still, I don't see how that goes against being fiscally conservative.

- Protecting Americans. It is the first job of this country to protect it's citizens. Whether it's corporations taking shortcuts that result in oil wells exploding or psychopathic Chinese businessmen tainting food with chemicals to make it look like there's more protein until it starts killing children. I'm not happy with the way, for example, the FDA or OSHA are run, I would like to see some major common-sense reform in there.

In general, I believe it is the government's job to be the referee. The ones to set the rules to keep things FAIR. Equal OPPORTUNITY as opposed to equal OUTCOME.

For certain kinds of regulations, all you have to do is look at China where schools collapse in even minor earthquakes becuase of there being lax enforcement of building codes. Contrary to libertarian beliefs (and I lean that way in many areas), sometimes it's too late to "let the market decide". I'm sorry, but the market deciding after people die is a terrible way to let things run. Like after the Cocoanut Grove fire.

[Guest]

Now, on other points..

You often say you are a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.

You appear to be bright, but your position here is utterly and hopelessly impossible.

To be a social liberal you require a big government with high taxes which makes it impossible to be a fiscal conservative.

If you don't agree with me please explain how your mixed position is mathematically feasible.


For examples that BK didn't bring up specifically...

Gay marriage - Having gays in my family has undoubtedly influenced my opinion on this. Having a serial, heterosexual uncle who married 6 times (4 women) and may have been a pedophile along with an incest perpetrator may also influence me. Argument on "the sanctity of marriage" immediately (IN MY OPINION) disqualify someone from the debate. People like my late uncle are ok? Like Brittany Spears weekend not-a-marriage? THOSE are ok (no Constitutional Ammendment being proposed against THEM) but my aunt who lived for 17 years with the same woman, bought a house, raised a kid, paid her taxes and hardly ever got so much as a ticket - SHE's the "bad guy"? Get real.

Doesn't take high taxes for that. By the same token, no church should be FORCED to perform a gay marriage. There are plenty of churches that will (assuming you want to be married in a church). If they won't, I would wonder why you're with that church to begin with.

Any other examples you'd like?

[Guest]

Thanks BK. I do enjoy Political, it is way more interesting than hearing more debates about roundabouts. I steer clear of posting because I'm not smart enough to win any battles! I have lots of opinions about Obama, but they are best kept in a box under my bed.

There may not be any rules in Political on citizenship or how long you can stay, but I've seen peeps get tarred and feathered and run out of town! :22yikes:

I agree with you if this post and your one comparing Biden with Palin are your positions you best stay clear of Political.

By the way Palin is Smarter has better experience and is more attractive in all ways when compared with Biden.

[Guest]

.

[Guest]

Some things are better left unsaid.