Middle Buffalo

QUOTE (kev211 @ May 19, 2010 -> 11:33 AM) I don't think Ben is really with MIB. I hope he has one of his plans, because he always has one and somehow turns on MIB in the finale and kills him. The reason I think this is because at the end of the episode MIB said "I'm going to destroy the island" and there is no way Ben wants to destroy the island. I think that's the twist that will ultimately happen. It won't be Hurley or Sawyer stepping in for Jack. Ben wants to stay on the island, the others really do not. I think they will return to their sideways realities, and Ben will turn on Locke in the end - probably pushing Locke into the light. Just a guess.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 18, 2010 -> 07:42 PM) I wonder how big Ben was supposed to be when this show started? I can't imagine this program without him. On the Simmons podcast, Cuse says that it was originally for a few episodes. Cuse went on to say that if Ben wasn't so good, they would have just made him an Other that was captured by the survivors, but Ben was so good that they made him the leader of the Others. Also, Mr. Echo was supposed to have a bigger role, but the actor playing him didn't like Hawaii, so they let him go. His screen time was basically replaced with more Ben.

I haven't listened yet, but Carlton Cuse was on Bill Simmons' podcast released Friday. "Bill Simmons talks with "Lost" creator and writer Carlton Cuse about the creation and evolution of the show as it nears the series finale." Simmons is usually a pretty good interviewer when he's interested in a topic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 12, 2010 -> 05:27 AM) That was maybe the worst episode in the entire series. What a complete waste of time. I think they might have been trying to establish a spin-off for Jacob and MIB. In the future, it will probably be seen as a throw-away episode, much like the "Kelly's Kids" episode in season 5 of "The Brady Bunch." http://www.bradyworld.com/episodes/fifth.htm#kelly

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 12, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) I prefer a method of going after business that hire illegal workers. Eventually, I think this is the key. However, I believe we first have to figure out what to do with the illegals that are here now. It's unrealistic to think that any gov't policy will force all the illegals here to return peacefully to their homelands, and even more unrealistic to think that our law enforcement has the manpower/money to control the problem. I don't think we should offer amnesty, but should have some kind of visa solution. This will get illegals out of the shadows. Pay fines, get documented, run background checks, etc. Then, make the policy be that anyone who has not been approved by the government cannot be employed, and fine companies not in compliance. If you fine companies first, you are asking the individual citizen to do the job that we pay the government to do. If that's the case, why have government at all. Local economies are dependent upon the people who live in the area. If you take 500,000 illegals out of Arizona, what does that do to the local economy? If you take 12-15 million illegals out of the US, how will that affect the US economy? And the answer isn't to say that they won't be using gov't resources anymore. The gov't will just find another way to waste money. Like it or not, illegals are consumers. They might send billions of money earned here to their homelands, but they spend many more billions locally.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 11, 2010 -> 11:10 AM) I have no problem with criticizing government. Love it or leave it is stupid, and not what I'm saying. I'm merely saying if it was so great where you're from, why'd you come here at all if it was on a permanent basis. Those coming here on a temporary basis, legally, can continue to do what they want...also not the people I'm talking about. To drop any political correctness here, I'm talking about the illegals who come here for a better life, but still fly that flag they ran from. :usa :usa My Dad left Ireland because he was one of the youngest of 13 kids who grew up on a farm. The oldest traditionally took over the farm from the parents, and the rest had to go out and find work. There wasn't much work in Ireland in the 50s, so he came here. He's a proud American, but that doesn't make him any less proud of his native land. Ireland just wasn't "great" enough to provide him work. Should he tuck the Irish flag away? I guess you think so. Also, how is it that you distinguish someone who is here legally and proudly waves the flag of their homeland from someone here illegally? Is there a color chart (I know Republicans like color charts) available?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2010 -> 07:29 AM) I've said before if we are going to do a program like this, it is essentially based on need. If people didn't feel that they needed a better life, they wouldn't come here in the first place. Personally I don't feel that just because Mexico is the closest to the US, that they should be the most favored nation. I would rather see us taylor our program towards saving people in REAL need. I'm not talking about just poverty, I am talking about people in war torn areas, people living through famines, people suffering genocide, people who are political targets. With all of the really desperate situations in the world, we can do better than being Mexico's welfare program. I was talking to my wife's Mom on Mother's Day, and she told me what had just happened to her cousin in Mexico. Her cousin lives in a border town in Mexico. Someone from one of the cartels showed up at her house one day and gave the cousin and her husband a choice. Work for the cartel packaging drugs, or their whole family would be killed. They had 24 hours to agree or they could leave without incident, but the cartel was seizing their house in 24 hours. The same offer was made to all their neighbors. So they came to the US illegally. This isn't a unique situation. This type of intimidation has been happening for 20+ years in Mexico - and not just in the border towns. The people have nowhere to turn because the government is corrupted by the cartels. The law enforcement is corrupted by the cartels. And believe it or not, our Border Patrol has been corrupted by the cartels. The cartels give you a choice. Work with us or you and your family die. Some choice. Another example of the corruption of the Mexican police: A friend of mine took a job in Mexico city. He's white, so he stood out. One day he was walking through the center of town, and a cop took him by the arm and started to question him about some nonsense and tried to get him into his police car. My friend said it just didn't seem right, so he broke free from the cop and started running toward another cop he saw directing traffic. The cop who had grabbed my friend didn't pursue. He was just looking to kidnap and empty my friend's bank accounts. My friend quit his job and left immediately. Successful Mexicans don't have that chance.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 23, 2010 -> 03:15 PM) My bedroom set has a couple hidden compartments which would take a burgler more than a few seconds to locate. One I modified to where it will not open without something else happening. So I feel reasonable safe that a burgler would not use my own gun on me. It also is an extra step that I would have to be awake enough to get to the gun and possible not accidentally shoot someone. Now, some joker you met in the craigslist casual encounters is the beneficiary of all your hard work. Hope you remembered to remove the gun and other "toys" before you gave him the goods. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...p;#entry2146645

I blame the Cubs. I'm sure Milton will agree with me.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2010 -> 11:48 AM) That's where the fine for committing an already illegal act comes in. And don't worry, they will screw it up. Remember the last amnesty was supposed to fix things too. Who gets fined in the event that an illegal immigrant gets pulled over for a traffic violation? The immigrant? Will his fine cover the cost of the enforcement? I doubt it. I personally don't believe in amnesty, but I also don't think it's realistic to try to round up 12-15 million people suspected to be here illegally. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't see how the current law (SB1070) will manage to do anything other than hassle brown skinned people and add more work to already overworked law enforcement officers. I don't see this as much more than a way for local Republicans (Arpaio, Brewer, Pearce, et al) to get some free publicity in an election year. It's similar to abortion in that it's an issue that only comes up during the election cycle. We never hear anything about abortion on the federal level unless there's a presidential election, and this is similar in that way. In my humble opinion. I think we'd be better served to implement some kind of work visa situation for those that are here currently illegally. Get them to come forward and let them stay for a period. If we know who they are, then we can figure out when they'll need to leave or file for an extension. We have built a false economy that they are part of. People (American citizens) have started businesses, bought rental property, etc. with the idea that the pool of people who buy from them or rent from them have the right to be here. It's unfair to the Americans who have done nothing wrong but seek the American dream of owning their own businesses. Americans have already been burned by the collapse of Wall Street and the housing market, why pile on? It might also make sense for the U.S. to give incentives to American companies to relocate some of their foreign industrial jobs to south of the border. Want to keep Mexicans in Mexico? Give them a reason to stay. I'm sure they'd rather be near their families and friends in Mexico than living in the shadows in the U.S.

The cost of universal health care is the main argument against it, as I understand. Are these new immigration controls going to be cost free? How do we pay for it? Why would we trust the government to run this, when we don't think they can operate healthcare? Local law enforcement is broke throughout the country. The federal government is deeply in debt. Won't we have to raise taxes to fund this new immigration law?

I apologize if I've said this before, but Jin and Sun wouldn't speak English to each other. It bothers(ed) me every time they do it. It's really a pretty terrible oversight on the part of the writers. Not an important plot point or anything, but it's jarring to me. That is all. Oh, and somehow I forgot the show was new today. So, I have to wait until tomorrow to see the first half hour.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 3, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) Having machine guns set up to automatically kill anything that moves = murder in most sane people's standards. You're discounting the possibility of the immigrants ducking or outrunning the bullets. In that case, they're just warning shots.

QUOTE (knightni @ May 3, 2010 -> 11:47 AM) wa-la? I'm pretty sure SS2K5's real identity is Marshall Brodien. Every so often he forgets that this isn't Bozotalk.

Here's a link to a Pulitzer Prize winning series that ran in the East Valley Tribune a year or so ago. It's a five part series, but worth a look just to see the lengths that law enforcement in Maricopa County sometimes goes to in order to have "reasonable suspicion." It might help to explain some of the fears that people have regarding SB1070.http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/page/reasonable_doubt

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 10:31 AM) BTW...whoever's writing the Democrat's acronyms lately deserves a promotion. They had me years ago with SCMODS - State County Municipal Offender Data System.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 10:07 AM) However keep in mind, even according to the NYTimes, Mexicans send back BILLIONS, even with the weakening economy. How is this different from Americans going on vacations and spending BILLIONS in Mexico? It's all money earned here that is spent elsewhere.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 10:00 AM) Are you really telling me the governments in Mexico and Cuba are similar? I'm telling you that people come here from Mexico because they have no opportunity in Mexico. Mexico is basically lawless. Their government provides nothing for them. And we want to turn them away. Are you telling me that the government of China is different from the government of Cuba? Communism is communism, right? But it's ok for us to do business with one country and not the other.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) So where is the part about a kid fleeing China and a family trying to keep them hear to keep them out of the grasps of the government? We're not allowed to travel to Cuba, import items from Cuba, etc. But we can go to China and do business with China. Both are communist countries. Why the difference? People (kids and adults) flee Mexico daily because of the oppressive government and poverty in that country. They come to the U.S. seeking refuge and opportunity. But we want to turn them away.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) That is a terrible analogy. The problem was sending him back to an oppressive communist government. Did Castro take over Mexico? If the U.S. has such a problem with communism, why do we do so much business with China? Pretty good article about why Obama shouldn't get involved in the immigration issue. Funny that McCain has changed his tune so drastically in an election year. http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/2010042...10_bushwasright

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 07:25 AM) We all know what looks suspicious and what doesn't. And if you can't then you can't harass those people. That's the point. Sure a small percentage of people will get harassed for no good reason, they'll sue, and they'll most likely get compensated. That's how our system works. No different than any other law out there that cops abuse and enforce illegally. My viewpoint on this is talking with my cop buddies who work in the worst areas of Chicago. They're limited in what they can do despite what common sense would dictate. This legislation should have been worded differently, and should have included more detail as to what reasonable suspicion means. But the intent of the law is good, and I don't see much abuse happening that wouldn't happen with any other law. Here's a very real situation that could happen to me. I work with a Mexican guy who recently became a citizen. He doesn't speak English, and he looks like any illegal you might see on the streets here in AZ. And, he's not going to learn English any time soon because he's in his late 50's, and it's not that easy to learn another language late in life. So, he's pretty much always going to fit this profile. If I have him in my car, and I roll through a stop or don't signal (pretty common traffic violations), a cop who see might pull me over. The cop can look in my car and see my friend, and, having "reasonable suspicion" that I have hired a day laborer, start asking questions. If my friend doesn't have the proper id on him, my friend will be detained. Unlawfully. He's an American citizen, but he fits the profile of illegal immigrant. In this case, I could also be cited and have to prove that I am innocent. It's easy for you to say that my friend can sue, etc., but one of the rights we all have is innocent until proven guilty. A passenger who's in my car while I commit a traffic violation has done nothing wrong and shouldn't have to prove it. And neither should I.

Arizona is the state that previously refused to acknowledge Martin Luther King's holiday, and it's the state that recently voted overwhelmingly to recognize English as the official language. If you believe that it's the "illegal" part of "illegal immigrant" that worries Arizonans, you're wrong. This all has to do with the color of the skin of the people in question.

This is as good a place as any to ask what I can eat to assure the biggest "load." My wife is out of town, and I want to surprise her with my performance when she comes back. I ask only because this is probably the second weirdest thread I've seen here.

QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Apr 4, 2010 -> 09:14 PM) I cried during Benjamin Button. I have no idea why. Never cried at a movie other than that, but my wife makes fun of me for it all the time. I must have been on my man period. If you cried during the scene at the end when BB was a toddler holding hands and walking with his elderly wife (I think it was her - I can't remember), there's nothing to be ashamed of. You're only human. Say these exact words to your wife next time she brings it up, "I don't know what you're laughing at. You're the one who married a pu$$y." When I was an 18 year old prospective freshman at Illinois, during the orientation, my group leader told us that as we toured the campus, other groups would be yelling I-L-L at us. We should respond with I-N-I. I confess that I walked around all day having no idea why we were yelling I-L-L and I-N-I at each other. And it only took me 7 years to get my BS.

I've never played fantasy baseball, so I truly don't understand most of the "new" stats. I know there's value in sabermetrics, but I feel like Simmons used to feel. He used to argue against the stat guys precisely because of players like JD Drew. I know what I see, and there has to be some value to that, too. Simmons is guilty of doing my least favorite fan argument - talking about an outfielder's defensive ability. He says Jacoby Elsbury has bad instincts, gets bad jumps, etc. How does he know this from watching the games on tv? I hear people talking this way all the time: "He's a great center fielder...>" Really? What makes you an expert on defensive play in the outfield? How closely do you really watch players even when you're at the game? Most people just watch the pitcher, then the batter, then follow the ball. How many people watch the center fielder or shortstop while the ball is being pitched?