Soxbadger

Haslem killed Fischer on that play.

The refs reward b**** play. They give fouls for screams, falling, etc.

Now OKC gets a few momentum calls in their favor? Wade looks like a wrestler after he got hit with a steel chair.

They got it up to 15 and Cole had made maybe 1 3 the entire playoffs. Heat just have a horseshoe up their ass right now.

Spoelstra's line up here is a real risk, OKC could blow this lead open.

Yeah some of those charges like, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of a minor, unlawful contact are much easier for a jury to convict on.

Without being there it is very very difficult to tell. The entire case is credibility, without actually seeing the testimony, its hard to tell if the jurors think any of the victims lied. If I had to bet, I would say that it is very unlikely that Sandusky is acquitted of all charges. There are 52 of them, I cant really find exactly what all 52 are, but my guess is some of them are very broad/vague, where it would really take a disconnect for the jury to find him not guilty. But when it comes to celebrity cases and juries, you just really never know. If Sandusky was really respected in the PSU community, the jury very well could make a strange decision. But I believe Sandusky will be convicted of something. Today the defense did better, they got in evidence that the police may have been coaching victims. Its pretty damaging because it allows the defense to argue that if it happened to 1 victim, its likely that all victims were coached, etc. They really havent put in any evidence why there might have been a conspiracy against Sandusky, that probably was a mistake.

A lot of places are saying Sandusky will testify.

Crime rates going down could be a million things. I dont think guns commit crimes, I think people commit crimes. More or less guns should have very little impact on crime rates. Someone who is a law abiding citizen isnt more likely to become a criminal just because they buy a gun. Someone who is a criminal isnt less likely to be a criminal just because they cant get a gun. What guns should impact is death rate as guns are better at killing people than knifes and other weapons. That being said, untrained individuals having guns on the street pose a risk to innocent people, guns unlocked in the home pose a risk to innocent children. Here is a Utah study: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNSTAT.html Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986) A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded. (Miller, et al, 2005) Here is a Boston study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11937613 Between 1988 and 1997, the suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm death rates among women were disproportionately higher in states where guns were more prevalent. Im not really huge on either side of this debate, I just dont believe that more guns= less crime. I also dont think that more guns = more crime.

Baseball HOF is full of players who cheated to win, its completely hypocritical that they now care about steroids. But I guess doctored baseballs (Gaylord Perry) is less cheating than taking steroids which dont conclusively make you better.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:27 AM) I just got told that problem didn't exist. You guys probably should get your talking points straight. Also even if the other side is right, and there is a major tax deficit, most illegals aren't going to be working the types of jobs that make them taxpayers enough to cover the benefits they use over a life time. Do that times however many illegals there are here... not pretty. Its not really the crux of my argument, which is about increasing access to the US because more immigrants should improve the economy. Its not about tax, its about economics QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) LEGAL immigrant. But nice spin to something irrelevant. Actually if you read the posts you would understand why it is relevant. Carnegie was only able to immigrate here due to extremely lax immigration policies. The point is that the US should go back to those policies, so that we dont turn away the next Carnegie. His parents had to borrow money to pay to come across to the US, he was the type of "poor immigrant" people so unnecessarily fear.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 09:39 AM) Like I said, my system is based on the needs of the US. It doesn't make sense to bring people here, if their aren't jobs for them. Anything past what is demanded is only going to hurt the people who are here in a disproportional manner. There is going to be an enforcement aspect to any immigration policy. That is why I feel it is necessary to remove incentives for being here illegally, which is why there should be a punishment for doing so. It removes the incentives to break the laws. This isnt true. There dont need to be "jobs" waiting, there will never be "jobs" waiting because I have never heard 1 economist believe that unemployment can be 0%. As I pointed out, most economists both liberal/conservative, believe that immigrants create jobs. Can you find any modern economist who agrees in protectionism? I mean even Adam Smith understood this 500 years ago. http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2011...y-and-invasive/ It does make sense to bring people here if you believe in economics.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:30 PM) And how much will your taxes need to go up to support the new immigrants. If you think this is sustainable then good luck. I dont know how much my taxes have to go up. Perhaps the govt will cut other programs that I dont think are worthwhile. But the US budget spends a lot of money on border patrol, etc. Maybe they take that money and put it into healthcare. Im sure I could find money if they gave me the chance, and not only that, but wed have a rocking economy that would boom hard.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:27 PM) Well tell me how the 11 million undocumented people that we just snapped into a work permit are dealing with health care costs. Are we in the status quo of they show up to the emergency room and the hospital gets to flip the bill. They are laying off nurses at the local hospital because of the increased cost to the hospital. So we snap our fingers and we have open borders. How are they paying for healthcare. Because Ill be making more money, just like most other Americans when the new immigrants create middle level opportunities for American citizens, so the govt will get more money from me to pay for them. Also some of these immigrants will become rich and pay far more than their fair sure. Its a lot better than an illegal immigrant making money in the US to send back to his family in Mexico, instead of spending that money in the US.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:19 PM) So your free African refugee gets sick, he can't afford the doctor. Your not just going to let him die. You will need to make sure he can get free access to healthcare, isn't that Obamacare. 1924 a trip around the world was a different thing than it is today. You open up the doors without any control in this modern world and you would be shocked at the entry. Hell how many undocumented people from our neighbor to the south. Yep I pay my taxes so the immigrants can get healthcare. Just like I pay taxes so the Southern states can get federal money to build roads etc. Sometimes my tax money goes to where I like, sometimes not. I just dont live my life based on a mythical fear of immigrants, when the US was built on immigrants and had its most successful years with high immigration.

I thought that most economists debunked that myth, both liberal/conservative too, its one of the things actual economists agree on. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/does-immigration-cost-jobs/ Brits: Somerville and Sumption: [T]he impact of immigration [on a nation's economy] remains small, for several reasons. Immigrants are not competitive in many types of jobs, and hence are not direct substitutes for natives. Local employers increase demand for low-skilled labor in areas that receive low-skilled immigrant inflows. Immigrants contribute to demand for goods and services that they consume, in turn increasing the demand for labor. And immigrants contribute to labor market efficiency and long-term economic growth. Cato: David Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote in an article for Commentary magazine in December: Griswold: The addition of low-skilled immigrants expands the size of the overall economy, creating higher-wage openings for managers, craftsmen, accountants, and the like. The net result is a greater financial reward and relatively more opportunities for those Americans who finish high school. Liberal Think Tank: Shierholz: A key result from this work is that the estimated effect of immigration from 1994 to 2007 was to raise the wages of U.S.-born workers, relative to foreign-born workers, by 0.4% (or $3.68 per week), and to lower the wages of foreign-born workers, relative to U.S.-born workers, by 4.6% (or $33.11 per week). http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economic.../el2010-26.html Another paper: The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21526893 Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-30/i...tudy-finds.html I assume you dont want more evidence, but just want to stick to your memes: THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:59 PM) Free health care and education and government aid. You open up the doors and everyone will be here. It's better than where they are. Where is this free health care you speak of? And the US has opened its doors before, prior to 1924, not everyone came here. Surprisingly, some people actually dont want to come here.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:52 PM) It's not sustainable. What makes the undocumented worker attractive to business is the lack of benefits and the lack of a real wage. Are we going to give them a minimum wage? So let's add a few million Pakistan/Indian skilled workers. How do you think that is going to play with American citizens and their job seeing status. Maybe we bring 10 to 15 million refugees from Africa. So what jobs are they getting again. Right these are the real concerns, isolationist fears, strangle competition before it starts. Minimum wage is a sacred cow, no one is touching that even though its a significant problem and our attitude has to be adjusted. Back before globalization minimum wage in a country could work, but now when you can simply move the factory when labor gets to expensive, you have to make a hard decision, do you lower minimum wage to compete worldwide, or do we cling to the idea of American exceptionalism. (this is an argument for another day) How do I think it will play with Americans who want to protect their job against someone who is more hungry and will harder? Work harder. I hate barriers of entry, I despise them. Barriers of entry are great when you are part of the exclusive club, "lets make passing the bar harder that way there are less lawyers and we can all make more money and work less!!!!" I disagree with that, if someone of the street can walk into my office and do my job better, they should get my job. If someone from another country can come to the US and beat me at my job, well they certainly earned it. If we believe in American exceptionalism then shouldnt American workers beat non-american workers? Just to be clear, I dont care what American's who want to take the easy road want. I am an American, I do not fear immigrants. I think most economic theory would support the fact that an increase in demand (more people) will cause there to be an increase in supply, which would result in an increase of jobs. As for your hypothetical, 10 million people arent going anywhere. The number of applications are generally around 5-6mil per year, so the US would likely be looking at maybe an influx of 10mil people within the first 5 years and after then it should stabilize. Even if it was 20mil, that would result in an increase of less than 10% of the population. The US would still be fraction of the size of China/India who will be our future competitors. The US would still have plenty of space, and quite frankly the US could really use more demand in the housing/land market, the banks are just sitting on empty properties.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:27 PM) IMMIGRANTS can. Illegal immigrants will have a much harder time. Big difference. Take that farm worker and make him legal. He was paying the sales taxes and so on before, so no now revenue there. And his income is not going to be that of Carnegie, so I don't see any added cashflow to the tax coffers, just an easier route to the free benies thanks to amnesty. nice try. Nobody here ever said LEGAL immigration was a bad thing. Right which is why you need to make all immigrants LEGAL immigrants. Carnegie immigrated to the US pre-1924, his family didnt need to apply, they just needed to show up. So that is the point, you are keeping potential Carnegies out of the country by denying immigration. Carnegie's family was dirt poor and likely would not have been able to immigrate under today's rules. QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:28 PM) So what you want is complete open borders, no limits. So how exactly does that work with a limited resource set. Because other countries, with work permits don't plant 11 million foreign workers plus indefinitely. It's not sustainable. It is not sustainable forever, but it is sustainable for now. Prior to 1924 you had to pay 50 cents and not be sick. With inflation that is no where near $500-$1,000 which would be a pretty reasonable sum to immigrate for. And sure perhaps in the future we will run out of space, America truly wont have room. But that is not today, and until that day it is my belief we let everyone who wants in. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:29 PM) Sure it is, just like social security!!!!!!! Historically the times the US has the highest immigration have coincided with the best US economies. The times when the US has the highest restrictions on immigration have been the worst. But who is reading history books these days, not me!

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:18 PM) I am an immigrant. Legal mind you. My parents never took assistance, worked multiple jobs and pushed education. We lived within our means. Now my relatives would of loved to come here as well. But they played by the rules. So I have no compassion for those who decided to violate the rules to get here. How are they more important than my family, who are equally as poor. They arent. I want to change the law so your family can come here too if they would like. And had any of your family come here illegally, I would have supported their right to a better life as well. (edit) Do you think its fair that some of your family arbitrarily were let in, while others were left behind? Dont you think it would have been more fair if they all could have had the same opportunity?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 09:48 PM) Then why practice law, if all you want to do is not follow it? Hypocrite. Because you are allowed to argue for change of law. Part of being a lawyer is advocating for the change of unjust laws. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Rules of Ethics http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/narr/IL_NARR_3.HTM http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/code/...DE.HTM#Rule_3.1 IRPC 3.1 is identical to MR 3.1. The rule prohibits a lawyer from bringing or defending a lawsuit unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law. So what you meant to say is that I am following ethical guidelines. Just like Jenks can argue that abortion laws should be changed, I can argue that immigration laws should be changed. What type of system do you think we live in, where lawyers cant argue that a law is unjust? Have you never heard of Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade? Or are you just unfamiliar with the term hypocrite, and think that it means "being consistent".

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 06:36 PM) What makes you thik they will have a high enough income to actually end up PAYING anything? The people working in the shadow economy make crap, which is why they rely so heavily on the benefits. If they still making crap, they will still be a drain. Andrew Carnegie, immigrant. What makes you think that immigrants wont make up lower, middle and upper class. US history is filled with immigrant success stories. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/08/08...mmigrants/1.htm

I bought a basketball and just started shooting/dribbling at my building. By Saturday night I couldnt even stay up I was so tired, haha.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 03:56 PM) The reason is that there is no reason not to break the law. Wait it out long enough, and you get what you want. Man you are just killing your own argument. So if the law doesnt work and there is no incentive to follow the law, should you: A) Blindly keep believing the law will work. B) Change the law.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 03:55 PM) It didn't work because the underlying problem, quotas imposed to keep the dirty races out that were too strict to meet demand for work, was not dealt with. Dont worry Balta, SS2k is getting me that information right now. He implied that he could show me where the US changed immigration restrictions to pre-1924 levels and offered amnesty, failing. So Im just waiting for him, because it should be easy to find, unless he doesnt have the proof...