southsider2k5

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ May 19, 2006 -> 02:54 PM) So does this mean we criminalize his parents and remove his citizenship now? I think there would be plenty who wouldn't mind in this specific case...

Shouldn't I be the one posting this thread?

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ May 19, 2006 -> 02:30 PM) BTW - Can I get my SN changed to "Phuck the Cubs" Only if I can change your member title to "Cubsessive"

What a stupid move by ND. The guy is a legend, and I hate ND.

If there is a blessing to the way the Sox played in Tampa Bay, it is that they learned a lesson about how to play against no-hit, OK pitching teams.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 18, 2006 -> 05:49 PM) I am totally opposed to opening a constitutional convention for this. In fact, I can't think of a single issue right now that I'd be in favor of letting those bastards get their hands on our constitution. I agree with this 100%. There is no issue I see important enough that we need to change the constiution right now. QUOTE(Soxbadger @ May 18, 2006 -> 06:08 PM) If the govt. recognizes female-male marriages then it should recognize same sex marriages. I dont think a constitutional amendment would pass either way though as I dont think you can get 3/4 of the states to agree. At best this is a state to state issue. I do believe that its none of our business to enforce religious mandates on the general public. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2006 -> 06:35 PM) Government and marriage of any kind should never be in the same sentence. Let alone the Constitution. Our government, state and federal, has no business in the field of marriage or any other personal relationship. Just because of the nature of the laws, IF it is going to be regulated, it is definately the states choice, and not the feds. The feds have enough national problems to worry about.

Who is going? I'll be there with a buddy from work. If anyone wants to say hey, I'll be sporting the black Baj of courage (Bajenaru black #57 jersey.)

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 18, 2006 -> 09:13 PM) Apprehensions do not necessarily = crossings. Despite budget cuts, they have increased the number of agents, and likely the effectiveness of agents, along the border. There were reports a few weeks ago that due to increase enforcement, coyotes were having to come up with new ways to smuggle people across, like in the dashboards of vans or something like that. Another factor is that it is getting to be summer down there... winter is definatley the season to trapse accross the desert if you have the time.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 18, 2006 -> 12:32 PM) So, there were a couple of other newsworthy notes on the immigration front today. First off, some more details on the fence they approved...the 3 layered fence is something like 350 miles long, and the bill also called for 500 miles of vehicle barriers. That covers almost half of the border. Secondly, there was another clause approved by the Senate yesterday I'm less sure of, and I'd love to hear more comments. So, this seems to me like a needless beurocratic step, and I find it hard to believe that it won't make the program a lot more expensive. I also wonder what criteria they're going to use for that...it could change depending on who's doing the enforcing of the law, and so it could really work to sabotage any guest worker program. Next, a lot of states are pretty darn unhappy with Bush's guard proposal, and rightly so, since it seems that, well, unsurprisingly, Michael Chertoff, head of the DHS, has absolutely no idea what's going on. It's probably worth noting that Arnold is right here, this looks like another management debacle in the making...sticking troops there with no idea what they're supposed to do, having to learn everything in 2 weeks and then suddenly be replaced, and having a constant state of people moving in and out, which will mean that a lot more than 6000 troops will be needed. The first year would involve an estimated 156,000 national guard troops, out of the 400,000 in the country. They're also supposedly going to try to make participation by states voluntary, which seems like it will cut heavily into the amount of men available. The mess is probably going to be made worse by the fact that the President is not going to take executive control over the guard, to avoid the "Militarizing the border" complaints. So the Guard units who are on duty will actually still be under the control of the governors of their states. And I don't think anyone really has a clue how that's going to work. So anywho, this looks like another management mess in the making for these folks. Finally, The LA Times sent some people down to the border to talk to the folks bringing people across, and discovered that as summer is coming around and talk is heating up in the U.S., business for border crossings have declined by as much as 50%. So first of all, this shows that the "They'll rush up here for the amnesty" argument doesn't work that well, but secondly, it reinforces my opinion that there is no "Crisis" to spur the use of the guard, the situation right now is getting better, not worse, so we have time to fix the problem. Of course, we only have so much time to fix the real crisis that is making the President use the Guard: That seems to directly contradict the Chicago Trib... Sorry you'll have to excuse the scan job as the chart accompanying the article wasn't on-line. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...1,2703035.story

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 18, 2006 -> 12:08 PM) border patrol and customs both work the bridges. And it's the citizens down here that aren't too excited about living in a militarized zone. From what I have read, many of them feel like they are under seige already.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 18, 2006 -> 11:59 AM) You know, Walker sometimes just drives me nuts. He works with Uribe in 2004, Uribe goes insane. He works with Crede in 05, Crede goes insane, but Uribe and Rowand both fall apart. Works with Crede, but Anderson can't figure things out, and Uribe gets even worse. Somehow he keeps having these hitters just suddenly make massive improvements, but he just can't keep them staying consistent. ARGH! I would say they can't keep themselves consistant. Its obvious Walk knows what he is doing, because he fixes people, but then they lapse back into their bad habits, which are not being taught by Greg.

QUOTE(Steff @ May 18, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) This is my fav of you two... that outfit is AWESOME!! Won't let me post it. :-( If its the one I am thinking of, with Mads in pink, I sent that one in as well, and they only published this one.

That is my favorite pic of us

QUOTE(Steff @ May 18, 2006 -> 12:07 PM) He's referring to a night game being played on get-a-way day. They are usually day games. Aren't they actually the ESPN Thursday nite game of teh week? That could be why as well.

QUOTE(JimH @ May 18, 2006 -> 09:12 AM) I wonder why the White Sox - DRays game is a night game ... it's a getaway day for the Sox and it'll be a really short turnaround time for the 3:05 pm start tomorrow. Oh well, they'll just have to suck it up. They went to this a few years back hoping to cut down on the drinking time before games, also hoping to cut down on the fights.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 18, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) You'd be telling the person you don't wanna employ them but hiring them on the sly...They come because they consistently get hired... And that's the problem. Start fining companies $50,000 or so per illegal and the problem literally goes away.

Happy Birthday boys, we could definately use both of you two around here more!

And if the answer is "no" ... WHY NOT???? Click the ads, support Soxtalk.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 17, 2006 -> 04:35 PM) I do have sympathy for them. Do you know how many parties in college have stripers at them? We had at least 4 a year, its a commonplace. Secondly, because of this bogus accusation, they lost their season, their reputation, and their privacy. It sucks. Its blatently obvious that this was a sham, and its pathetic. Ah no wonder you are so viament about this. Personal bias

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:19 PM) So if you were starving and desperate and came to my house and asked me to let you work to buy some food for your family, you wouldd be ok if I told you to get your ass back where you came from? The answer lies somewhere between these examples. Sure I wouldn't be happy about it, but it sure is within the homeowners rights.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ May 17, 2006 -> 03:37 PM) So you'll be in favor of a guest worker program and earned citizenship once it becomes law because you're such a strict law-abider, right? So if I came over to your house, robbed it, hung out in your kitchen until you got home, then told you to make me a sandwich, you'd be cool with it? How is it fair that you have more than I do. Its not logical for some people to have $50 billion, while I try to figure out how to buy formula for my baby right? It would totally be feasible for me just to take from someone else, because it is right there, and I really need it. It is also much cheaper for you just give it to me, than for me to drive over to your house and rob you, so really I should just send you my paypal account and you can send the money directly to me. Sound good?

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 17, 2006 -> 01:47 PM) We should take care of our neighbors because it adds to our national securty. Having an ally next door is advantagous to having an enemy. Healthy Canada and Mexico helps out economy by creating easy to get to markets for our goods and services. If this is about creating good will, wouldn't some war or famine victims play much better on the 6 o'clock news than some poor Mexicans and Canadians? We could create good will all over the world, and simultainious embark on the largest humanitarian mission in human history. We could create emerging markets all over the world for our products, and change opinions of us everywhere.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 17, 2006 -> 02:48 PM) I thought he backed off because of the cost and logistics. I said I could compromise if we had something that indicated it would solve this problem for the long term. No bill I have seen takes away the main problem, and that is an incentive to be in the US illegally. If we could adress that, I could live with admitting the illegals, despite the massive border rush it will cause, which has also been convieniently ignored by the pols and media. I also want to state that cost and logistics shouldn't stop us for doing what is right. We keep hearing that it is too expensive to send all of the law breakers back, but as soon as I suggested bringing in the truely desparate people from around the world, well that was too expensive too, and therein you have the root cause of this whole issue. American's always take the cheap and easy way out of everything. We had a chance to solve this problem 20 years ago, but completely blew it. We have a chance to solve this problem again today, and are well on the way to completely blowing it again. I thought we were the richest and most generous nation in the world, right? Then why is cost such an issue for doing what is right? Then again if this were truely about helping people, corporations would have just paid the people who are already here what it took to hire someone for a job. Instead all of the sudden everyone seems to be OK with enriching corporate American through the exploitation of Central America and Mexico's poor. QUOTE(Texsox @ May 17, 2006 -> 03:25 PM) So it is your opinion that it is in Americas best interest to track down and deport every last one? Is it yours that we can pick and choose which laws we want to obey?

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 17, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) ^^^^^^ Quick summary. I am in favor of allowing those immigrants who have jobs or can show financial support to immigrate. No financial support, no immigration. I do not believe that there are that many illegals getting paid less than minimum wage. I believe more were working with false papers and receiving minimum wage. It's also safer for the employer. I am also in favor of tying immigration numbers to some job number, not some arbitrary guess that we have to live with in 5 years that may under or over fill the workforce. I don't believe you are in favor of rounding up and deporting them, and you don't want to have them benefit from their crime, so what is your solution with the existing illegals? I favor a program for those illegals who have demonstrated good behavior to earn citizenship. They must not have committed a crime, have a good work history, etc. Um their very presence in the USA is a crime...