Soxbadger

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 23, 2014 -> 06:12 PM) This would be true if the people were coming here to work. In the example here, I believe al lor most of them are children under the working age. These are not workers thus will not add much to the economy but will take from it. Children wouldnt be coming here alone if we allowed their parents to legally immigrate with them. Most parents dont send their children away to foreign countries unless the situation is extremely dire. I disagree. If you want to come to America, follow the laws, you should have a chance. Just like the rest of us. The country isnt full, we have plenty of space. The arguments against are based on the idea that an American is deserving of more, just because they were born in America. It completely turns a blind eye to our history, to the very essence of what it means to be an American. America is nothing more than a hollow shell if we prevent others from having the same freedom and opportunity that we claim to espouse to the world.

Jenks, It would take a lot of time and effort to explain while lower wage workers actually would increase the wages for regular so I will try and explain the most simplistic terms: The entire idea of free market is that if someone will work for $7.50 a business should be able to hire them. The problem is once you start creating artificial floors you decrease the demand for labor. If I have to pay workers $7.50 an hour, I can hire 4 workers instead of 1 at $30. Economics suggest that is the appropriate business model, unless the 1 worker is worth 4x the other workers. It doesnt screw anyone. If you are worth $30 an hour, you will make your $30. But if you are not as good as someone who will take 25% of your wage, why are you deserving of more? That breaks the entire system and the result is manufacturers/etc moving to other markets where the cost of labor is cheaper. I didnt read the whole paper, but this Cato article has some of the reasoning behind why most people are backwards on immigration: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/file...pdf/tbp-032.pdf

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 23, 2014 -> 05:02 PM) It's the most capitalist idea to flood the market and make the cost of doing business more expensive for everyone? Really? And where does welfare play in to your "truly free market economy?" Cost of doing business more expensive? Increased supply = lower cost. And legal immigration is more important than welfare. I personally think that there is a very large economic benefit to have welfare, but if the rich want to see what happens if we get rid of it, I can also play that game.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 23, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) I would wager that your family also had a desire to become Americans, and not with a hyphen. They desired to learn English, to fit in, to succeed. You are fooling yourselves if you think these kids are here seeking merely refuge from violence, although there are sure to be some that fit that category. They are here for the promised goods that they think are there for the taking. Taking from you, me and anyone else that pays taxes. It is a very Christian thing, a very noble thing, to desire to help. But at some point the help becomes a detriment to your own survival and/or well being. Sure, easy to SAY "well you can do without the latest iPhone to help some poor kids". But when it comes to actually DOING that? People seem to want to use 'tax dollars' to help, conveniently forgetting that those also come from your pocket. I like that you think immigrants take away from the pie. Immigrants increase the pie for all Americans. Its one of the most basic capitalist ideas. Now granted, you may not be a capitalist, but if you believe in a truly free market economy, you can not believe in the restriction of labor. But I am a capitalist, so I believe that we should let immigrants in.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" It is our responsibility as Americans to take care of all of those who seek shelter here. I wont forget that over 100 years ago my family were the poor ones seeking a chance in a world where they wouldnt be murdered for their views. I will do my best to ensure that all who want it, get a similar chance.

Portugal also missed a few chances. That being said, you should not lose a match where you have the ball and there is 30 seconds left. It was really bad, even the defenders were playing too high.

As soon as Bradley felt the defender he should have knocked him down. A yellow card would have meant nothing. You can say the same thing about when Ronaldo got the ball, but its slightly more risky if Ronaldo gets by.

Not sure why the US was playing so forward.

Portugal just walking around

Really great shot

Good chance is a pretty big stretch. The big problem is the Uruagay v. Italy, because Englands chance depends on Italy beating Uruagay in a game where the Italians would only need a draw to be the top seed of the group.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2014 -> 04:47 PM) I was referring to this: "The USPTO has broad discretion to deny any trademark." They might, but at least in this area they've overstepped their bounds before. They do have broad discretion. Never said who would win or lose, just that this isnt exactly earth shattering that the USPTO is saying a TM is no longer good. It happens all the time.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2014 -> 04:07 PM) It's not that simple, and that's why the USPTO lost the first time they tried to do this. Never said it was simple. Just there is no "right" to trademark.

Im not so sure what is controversial here. A trademark is not a right. The USPTO has broad discretion to deny any trademark. You can still use the term, you just cant sue people in Federal Court over their use using TM law. You still have other ways to sue them. Even if the USPTO was to eliminate the logo TM (if there is one) the redskins could still have a copyright on it.

Spain in real trouble now. Chile just needs to not do anything stupid.

Wow is 8 for Chile looking to get a red card?

Uhoh Spain

The USPTO is hilariously inconsistent at every level. Ive had TMs approved that I thought would never work, Ive had them give me hassle over ones I never could imagine a problem.

Id say Brazil had the better chances and but for some pretty great saves could have been 2-0.

Mexico goalie is having quite a game.

Aron Jóhannsson has done pretty well this year in club. He actually replaced Altidore at AZ Alkmaar.

That really isnt my type of argument, so Id bet a lot of money you never see it from me. /shrugs

Yep, which is the game that the US looked their best.

Looks like they are going to try and score on the counter.

Gwynn was amazing, when he was younger he was pretty good at basketball as well.