goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: steve dave on July 13, 2013, 11:20:04 AM
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Fc071cd5742584660025c3c7738c45d6d%2Ftumblr_mprxziRmWk1s217p8o1_1280.jpg&hash=038a04a5a246f7c9ea6fad01c60b2dc4d80d1daa)
-
The Senate bill creates an extremely difficult path to citizenship, and increases border security to miltary-like levels. Senator Rubio practically wrote the thing, and the majority of Republicans in the House still won't pass it. The temper tantrum over President Obama's election/re-election is never going to end. The country has never been more divided, except for maybe back during the Civil War era.
-
The Senate bill creates an extremely difficult path to citizenship, and increases border security to miltary-like levels. Senator Rubio practically wrote the thing, and the majority of Republicans in the House still won't pass it. The temper tantrum over President Obama's election/re-election is never going to end. The country has never been more divided, except for maybe back during the Civil War era.
Oh good grief.
-
The country has never been more divided except for maybe when it was literally rough ridin' divided.
-
the senate bill is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). good that the house hates the senate too much to pass it.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F13%2F07%2F14%2Fubybeqy8.jpg&hash=253a75e67b4fda93403b623a6c311aefc290cd25)
"Pangea hasn't been this divided since Obama was president!"
-
Secession then:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F27%2FMap_of_CSA_4.png%2F550px-Map_of_CSA_4.png&hash=673e450444bfad7e0d45f1928e75bd26ade35774)
SECESSION NOW!:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.i.cbsi.com%2Fcnwk.1d%2Fi%2Ftim2%2F2013%2F06%2F09%2Fcolo.-secession_244x183.jpg&hash=2e4946e2fd09b6231e50529c4d58d496fbc58de3)
-
Disagreements then:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.soldierstudies.org%2Fimages%2Fwebquest%2Fcivil%2520war%2520soldiers.jpg&hash=006475896b896d0580467bcdddc7bd41e9a7f53f)
Disagreements NOW!:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2F600x39982.jpg&hash=ac3456d6fdc04d124ddd1ff18a73cbbe04f5089b)
-
man, what if new mexico and arizona were still north-south instead of east-west. it'd change everything.
-
Black people then:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fionenewsone.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Flb.jpg&hash=d50288b2e792d2c585357585fc3c50049ccb03d9)
Black people now:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F0%2F01%2FPoster-sized_portrait_of_Barack_Obama_OrigRes.jpg&hash=5a7ab1c81e96eaf92c2adf9c77c701e8391fa04a)
TWO SIMILARITIES! AND JUST ONE LITTLE DIFFERENCE!
-
Who crawled up bentren's ass and died?
:sdeek:
-
Who crawled up bentren's ass and died?
:sdeek:
just admit that you said a stupid thing, bro.
-
More divided than when the prior speaker of the house called the sitting president a liar? More divided than during Vietnam? No, its got to be the civil war.
I vote we just give up and let the two parties draw lots for states.
-
More divided than when the prior speaker of the house called the sitting president a liar? More divided than during Vietnam? No, its got to be the civil war.
I vote we just give up and let the two parties draw lots for states.
let's try east/west this time. where do you think the population divide would be? i bet it's east of the mississippi.
-
More divided than when the prior speaker of the house called the sitting president a liar? More divided than during Vietnam? No, its got to be the civil war.
I vote we just give up and let the two parties draw lots for states.
let's try east/west this time. where do you think the population divide would be? i bet it's east of the mississippi.
Since congress would be involved, its got to be gerrymandered as eff. Whatever line drawn would end up resembling something that offended someone, then theyd have to start over.
-
Who crawled up bentren's ass and died?
:sdeek:
just admit that you said a stupid thing, bro.
Not really. President Obama faced more filibusters in his first term than any other President in the history of the US. Republican obstructionism in the House has prevented tons of good, bipartisan legislation from getting passed .
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_have_republicans_filibustered_Obama (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_have_republicans_filibustered_Obama)
According to the Senate Historical Office, since the president took office, there have been a record number of filibusters; Republicans in the senate united to block nearly every major proposal that the Obama administration made, rather than letting such proposals receive an up-or-down vote on the floor of the senate, as used to be the custom. By some counts, there have been more than one hundred filibusters since 2009 (counting the refusal to confirm judges, that number rises even further); these filibusters included bills or proposals that Republicans previously had supported.
Among the bills Republicans filibustered were:
H.R. 12 - Paycheck Fairness Act
H.R. 448 -- Elder Abuse Victims Act
H.R. 466 - Wounded Veteran Job Security Act
H.R. 515 - Radioactive Import Deterrence Act
H.R. 549 -- National Bombing Prevention Act
H.R. 577 - Vision Care for Kids Act
H.R. 626 - Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act
H.R. 1029 - Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act
H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act
H.R. 1171 - Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization
H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act
H.R. 1429 -- Stop AIDS in Prison Act
H.R.5281 -- DREAM Act
S.3985 -- Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act
S.3816 -- Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act
S.3369 -- DISCLOSE Act, A bill to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities
S.2237 -- Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act
S.2343 -- Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act
S.1660 -- American Jobs Act of 2011
S.3457 -- Veterans Jobs Corps Act
Gerrymandering has gotten so bad that only a handful of districts are even competitive any more. What we're seeing now is highly conservative districts "primary" any Republican representative who shows a hint of being moderate or being able to compromise. You can scoff at the notion that the political environment in Washington is as toxic and divided as its ever been, but I'm not the only one who has noticed. Obama is the modern Jackie Robinson, the first minority President in our country's history, and he is facing an unprecedented amount of political opposition from the Republican party. You know it's bad when Marco Rubio's personally drafted immigration bill can't even get a vote in the House.
-
Guys, president Obama faced tons of filibusters
-
More divided than when the prior speaker of the house called the sitting president a liar? More divided than during Vietnam? No, its got to be the civil war.
I vote we just give up and let the two parties draw lots for states.
let's try east/west this time. where do you think the population divide would be? i bet it's east of the mississippi.
Since congress would be involved, its got to be gerrymandered as eff. Whatever line drawn would end up resembling something that offended someone, then theyd have to start over.
it would probably look like a salamander :lol:
-
SECESSION NOW!:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.i.cbsi.com%2Fcnwk.1d%2Fi%2Ftim2%2F2013%2F06%2F09%2Fcolo.-secession_244x183.jpg&hash=2e4946e2fd09b6231e50529c4d58d496fbc58de3)
I'm not sure where Ft Collins falls on that map, but for the most part those counties can GTFO. The people who go "we're in the minority, lets quit this government and make our own" are a bunch of pussies.
-
man, what if new mexico and arizona were still north-south instead of east-west. it'd change everything.
Is it sad that my first thought when reading this was how that would affect conference realignment?
-
The Senate bill doubles the size of the US border patrol, from 21,000 to 38,000. This is on top of the fact that the US border patrol doubled in size just ten years ago, from 10,000 to 21,000, after 9/11. Ironically, the "small government" conservatives fully support the border patrol surge part of the immigration bill, and want to vote on it separately. Everything else in the bill involving actual compromise, which includes a path to citizenship for over 11 million people, will likely be unable to pass in the House.
http://krwg.org/post/immigration-compromise-not-satisfying-skeptics-border (http://krwg.org/post/immigration-compromise-not-satisfying-skeptics-border)
-
The Senate bill creates an extremely difficult path to citizenship, and increases border security to miltary-like levels. Senator Rubio practically wrote the thing, and the majority of Republicans in the House still won't pass it. The temper tantrum over President Obama's election/re-election is never going to end. The country has never been more divided, except for maybe back during the Civil War era.
The senate bill gives the secretary of homeland security the power to do whatever they want with regards to border security. The day after the bill is signed they can proclaim the border secure an do nothing.
-
The Senate bill creates an extremely difficult path to citizenship, and increases border security to miltary-like levels. Senator Rubio practically wrote the thing, and the majority of Republicans in the House still won't pass it. The temper tantrum over President Obama's election/re-election is never going to end. The country has never been more divided, except for maybe back during the Civil War era.
The senate bill gives the secretary of homeland security the power to do whatever they want with regards to border security. The day after the bill is signed they can proclaim the border secure an do nothing.
They are fully capable of doing nothing without signing the bill
-
no one ever answered my question in the other thread. why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border? to what end? for what benefit?
-
no one ever answered my question in the other thread. why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border? to what end? for what benefit?
Securing the border is their end. That is their benefit.
-
The Senate bill creates an extremely difficult path to citizenship, and increases border security to miltary-like levels. Senator Rubio practically wrote the thing, and the majority of Republicans in the House still won't pass it. The temper tantrum over President Obama's election/re-election is never going to end. The country has never been more divided, except for maybe back during the Civil War era.
The senate bill gives the secretary of homeland security the power to do whatever they want with regards to border security. The day after the bill is signed they can proclaim the border secure an do nothing.
http://krwg.org/post/immigration-compromise-not-satisfying-skeptics-border (http://krwg.org/post/immigration-compromise-not-satisfying-skeptics-border)
TUCSON, Ariz. — The U.S. Senate is expected to vote today on a surge of border enforcement that would virtually double the infrastructure and manpower already in place along the nation’s borders. Though along the U.S.-Mexico border, many say they are skeptical of the new plan.
The announced rush of agents and fencing to the border surprised many people. The plan, authored by Republican Senators John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee, calls for nearly doubling the U.S. Border Patrol from 21,000 to 38,000 agents. It will also add another 700 miles of fencing to the border and increase aerial and radar surveillance of the borderlands – all at a cost of at least $30 billion.
In Washington D.C., politicians called it a major compromise aimed at passing the most sweeping immigration reform in a generation. On the border, however, skeptics call it something else.
-
If people want to come into this country, I'm sorry, we're closed now. Blame your ancestors.
-
no one ever answered my question in the other thread. why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border? to what end? for what benefit?
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
I agree, but we already have laws against illegal aliens working, but those laws (and probably future laws) are ignored or selectively enforced.
Remember how the "self deportation" comment was reacted to by democrats. RACIST
-
I agree.
good. that's you, me and kat kid. just 300 million to go and we'll have a consensus.
-
I agree.
good. that's you, me and kat kid. just 300 million to go and we'll have a consensus.
you guys agreeing doesn't mean crap. the key is you all voting for someone who agrees.
-
you guys agreeing doesn't mean crap. the key is you all voting for someone who agrees.
i don't think that's going to work. let's just put it on as a ballot initiative.
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
Seems like it would be easier to keep them out at the border than police all employment. Either way, I'd rather they just stick with the cheap labor and let they states decide whether they want to bankrupt themselves with welfare.
Also, illegal border crossing is a serious health safety and welfare issue that is completely ignored in all of this. Which favors border security.
-
Seems like it would be easier to keep them out at the border than police all employment. Either way, I'd rather they just stick with the cheap labor and let they states decide whether they want to bankrupt themselves with welfare.
Also, illegal border crossing is a serious health safety and welfare issue that is completely ignored in all of this. Which favors border security.
it seems way easier to police employment. all you need is a decent id system and penalties for flouting the law. way less costly and causes way less distortion than trying to stop anyone from crossing a two thousand mile long invisible line. not to mention that currently (with the allegedly unsecured, horribly porous border), something like 40% of illegals arrive legally and overstay their visas.
illegally crossing the border is a health and welfare issue because in order to cross a border that we attempt to secure, people pay violent, amoral criminals to smuggle them across and/or attempt to cross in areas that have inhospitable, dangerous climates and terrains. stop trying to secure the border and that all immediately goes away.
-
Well, rather than forfeit our sovereignty, why don't we annex Mexico while the getting is is good.
You're drastically simplifying things in your favor.
-
Well, rather than forfeit our sovereignty, why don't we annex Mexico while the getting is is good.
You're drastically simplifying things in your favor.
sorry for making things simple.
-
What does sovereignty mean to you?
-
What does sovereignty mean to you?
No goddamn messicans.
-
no one ever answered my question in the other thread. why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border? to what end? for what benefit?
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
They won't receive more than their employers pay in, and their employers need them.
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care and other benefits.
Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.
Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."
Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.
Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."
Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.
Wait - what's my solution?
-
no one ever answered my question in the other thread. why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border? to what end? for what benefit?
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
They won't receive more than their employers pay in, and their employers need them.
Much will depend on how may children they have, but the majority of them will when you figure in food stamps, subsidized obamacare, and other tax credits.
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.
Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."
Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.
Wait - what's my solution?
See page 25.
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf (http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf)
-
no one ever answered my question in the other thread. why do people that say, "we need to secure the border", say that we need to secure the border? to what end? for what benefit?
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
They won't receive more than their employers pay in, and their employers need them.
Much will depend on how may children they have, but the majority of them will when you figure in food stamps, subsidized obamacare, and other tax credits.
Just how much does the average illegal immigrant earn? $20,000? $30,000? Do you have any reputable stats to show that uneducated illegal immigrants are creating a net loss on the US economy?
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.
Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."
Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.
Wait - what's my solution?
See page 25.
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf (http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf)
Wow, my solution actually sounds pretty good, except for border fence, which seems like a waste of money. Thanks.
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.
Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."
Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.
Wait - what's my solution?
See page 25.
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf (http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf)
Wow, my solution actually sounds pretty good, except for border fence, which seems like a waste of money. Thanks.
The problem with your system is that it forces employers to select from unqualified applicants who are unwilling to work the number of hours for the same pay as an illegal immigrant. It inflates the cost of US goods beyond what the free market dictates while reducing the quality of those goods due to the poor quality of the work provided by the unemployed US citizens. This shrinks the US economy, leading to unemployment, reduced government tax revenue, and more entitlement spending. All it really accomplishes is keeping Mexicans in Mexico.
-
What's the benefit of millions more minimally educated low-wage workers that will be receiving more from the state than pay in?
but why try to keep them out at the border? you don't have to secure your border to restrict access to employment.
Tighter employer verification standards will only go so far to prevent illegal employment, and they do nothing to stop the various other problems associated with uncontrolled borders. For example:
- Anchor babies.
- Narcotics.
- "Free" access to health care.
Of course, liberals would disagree that any of these things are a "problem."
Unfortunately, your solution is worse than the problem.
Wait - what's my solution?
See page 25.
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf (http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf)
Wow, my solution actually sounds pretty good, except for border fence, which seems like a waste of money. Thanks.
The problem with your system is that it forces employers to select from unqualified applicants who are unwilling to work the number of hours for the same pay as an illegal immigrant. It inflates the cost of US goods beyond what the free market dictates while reducing the quality of those goods due to the poor quality of the work provided by the unemployed US citizens. This shrinks the US economy, leading to unemployment, reduced government tax revenue, and more entitlement spending. All it really accomplishes is keeping Mexicans in Mexico.
Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line. :rolleyes: If anything, this seems like an argument for abolishing the minimum wage, rather than employing a slave class.
-
Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line. :rolleyes:
Americans will do the job if you pay them more and give them more time off. They won't perform at the same level, though. If they were hard working people, they wouldn't be unemployed.
-
Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line. :rolleyes:
Americans will do the job if you pay them more and give them more time off. They won't perform at the same level, though. If they were hard working people, they wouldn't be unemployed.
Sounds like an argument for reforming our welfare and disability programs.
-
K-S-U-W! Has not made a single suggestion that would be good for the country's GDP. FWIW.
-
Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line. :rolleyes:
Americans will do the job if you pay them more and give them more time off. They won't perform at the same level, though. If they were hard working people, they wouldn't be unemployed.
Sounds like an argument for reforming our welfare and disability programs.
How is welfare reform going to make the majority of people on welfare desirable to American employers?
-
Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line. :rolleyes:
Americans will do the job if you pay them more and give them more time off. They won't perform at the same level, though. If they were hard working people, they wouldn't be unemployed.
Sounds like an argument for reforming our welfare and disability programs.
How is welfare reform going to make the majority of people on welfare desirable to American employers?
To take an extreme example, needing to eat is a wonderful incentive to make people work harder.
-
Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line. :rolleyes:
Americans will do the job if you pay them more and give them more time off. They won't perform at the same level, though. If they were hard working people, they wouldn't be unemployed.
Sounds like an argument for reforming our welfare and disability programs.
How is welfare reform going to make the majority of people on welfare desirable to American employers?
To take an extreme example, needing to eat is a wonderful incentive to make people work harder.
It's not really an incentive to hire somebody when a more experienced worker is available from Mexico who doesn't have a documented history of being lazy.
-
Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line. :rolleyes:
Americans will do the job if you pay them more and give them more time off. They won't perform at the same level, though. If they were hard working people, they wouldn't be unemployed.
Sounds like an argument for reforming our welfare and disability programs.
How is welfare reform going to make the majority of people on welfare desirable to American employers?
To take an extreme example, needing to eat is a wonderful incentive to make people work harder.
Yep, the ole starvation stick, eat carrot has worked wonders throughout history. Especially for the worker.
-
Ah, the old "doing the work Americans just won't do, and doing it better, too" line. :rolleyes:
Americans will do the job if you pay them more and give them more time off. They won't perform at the same level, though. If they were hard working people, they wouldn't be unemployed.
Sounds like an argument for reforming our welfare and disability programs.
How is welfare reform going to make the majority of people on welfare desirable to American employers?
To take an extreme example, needing to eat is a wonderful incentive to make people work harder.
Yep, the ole starvation stick, eat carrot has worked wonders throughout history. Especially for the worker.
It didn't work for the wealthy settlers of Jamestown.
-
A tough event occurred for a small business owner in Pennsylvania when a partner screening revealed a fake record. The entrepreneur needed to work with a different supplier to improve their shop. The review suggested the partner had a negative financial record. Businesses depend on these checks to pick safe partners. The owner felt worried about teaming up with the company. The provider pulled information from public files. Some owners say these services should detect fake data more well. The fake detail paused the deal for weeks. The businessperson needed a accurate report to move forward. Businesses fear about their plans being protected. The provider said they follow strict guidelines to guard records. A businessperson suggested services verify partner details better. The businessperson worked to fix the record with the supplier. Regional laws change how these checks work. Some owners recently request better tools for screenings. Officials are thinking new laws to prevent errors. Experts believe services should improve their systems for reliability. The owner wants to clear the issue fast. These issues can block growth fast. The provider provided help to resolve the error promptly. A good system remains important for owners. For additional information on business checks, visit ig-tchad.org (https://ig-tchad.org/) to discover valuable tips. Entrepreneurs should check reports for mistakes. If anything looks incorrect, they must inform the provider immediately. This keeps a just process for people. Businesspeople can ask to check the report if required. They can update any wrong details they find. Keeping a copy can serve as useful later. The service provides support to fix issues swiftly. Providers should teach their staff on screening policies. This can stop later problems. Businesses should learn their rights regarding checks. Openness creates trust for everyone.
-
A delivery driver in Miami recently applied for Amazon Flex and had to go through an Amazon Flex background check. Amazon Flex requires background screening to confirm their drivers are trustworthy. The background check reviewed criminal records, driving records, and employment history. One applicant was denied after the check showed a past offense that they forgot. The driver felt the report made it seem worse than it was. Amazon Flex follows strict background check regulations to keep customers safe. Some drivers say Amazon Flex should review old incidents more carefully. Others appreciate the quick response from Amazon Flex for the screening results. Applicants are concerned about the privacy of their private data. Amazon Flex states it secures this data under current rules. Different states have different regulations making uniform checks complex. Employers and drivers alike want transparency from Amazon Flex in how background checks are conducted. Authorities are considering new rules to keep checks fair. Experts say Amazon Flex should improve its screening system. To learn more about Amazon Flex background checks, check Amazon Flex screening info (https://ig-tchad.org/amazon-flex-background-check/). Applicants should thoroughly review their reports for errors. If something seems off, they should contact Amazon Flex quickly to correct it. This helps the process honest for everyone. Drivers can ask for copies of their reports and dispute inaccuracies. Keeping a copy is important for future reference. Amazon Flex provides support to handle problems promptly. Applicants and employers should understand their rights during screenings. Transparency and communication build trust. Amazon Flex lets drivers to view reports online for clarity. Fast and detailed reports help Amazon Flex make better decisions. A trusted company like Amazon Flex creates a big difference in delivery driver screening.