Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 1, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) They're selling stocks at market value. The alternative is to hold on to stocks. I would have thought you'd be happy with the divestiture. I would have been happy letting the s***ty company fail, just like the other companies that got us in this mess. I don't buy that allowing those companies to fail would have thrown us into the great depression 2. I think they would have gone through bankruptcy, fixed their issues, reorganized and continued working. Or, they would have been bought by a competitor. Either way, it would have worked out, and the US government wouldn't be out 14 billion+.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 1, 2011 -> 03:43 PM) TARP was wildly successful, one of the few large pieces of legislation in recent memory where that can be said. How is that idiotic? This isn't an argument against TARP. It's an argument about giving a bailout to a company that survived and is now profitable and not expecting that they pay ALL of that money back, even if it's slowly over time. Why should they get the double benefit - we saved them from totally collapsing, and we're giving them a break by not making them pay back 14 of the 90 something billion we gave them? That's f***ed up.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 1, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) Not all loans are repaid. There's an on-going housing crisis I could point to for that. Additionally, when this loan was made, they never expected it to be paid back in full. You can argue against the wisdom of that, but you can't act surprised that the treasury will lose some money on this. Chrysler's debts are paid-in-full, apparently. But the US government still holds a 6.6% share. Yeah, that's kinda what i'm saying. Why on earth did we agree to just give them money without expecting them to pay it back if they stayed in business? What idiot signed us up for that?

QUOTE (JoeBatterz @ Jun 1, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) Ohio State is going to learn to not do the crime, if they can't do the time. No they won't. They'll continue to do it, just like every major college program continues to do it. The idea that institutions can be 100% in accordance with the rules is a joke.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 1, 2011 -> 01:13 PM) It was ostensibly to keep the American economy from collapsing in on itself, not to turn a profit or even break even. Losses were expected from the start. The alternative is to keep having the government hold on to a large share. Holding on to a large share or not, I fail to see why we don't consider that a debt that must be repaid, regardless of how long it takes. WTF did we just give them 80 billion. It's a LOAN, with the expectation of REPAYMENT.

since this has become the Immigration Thread, here's some more bulls*** from this awful state of Illinois: http://articles.chicagobreakingnews.com/20...igher-education (1) why does the gov't need to be involved in private donations? (2) not costing a dime is bulls***, because they're using a state-funded group to manage it (3) wtf are we allowing illegal immigrants societal benefits like the college cost savings plan? I understand (though don't necessarily agree) with the idea that we shouldn't punish children for their parents' illegal acts. But that's what makes #3 infuriating to me. We do absolutely nothing in this country to keep people from immigrating here illegally.

anyone know why this is a "loss" and not a "they haven't paid it back yet, but they will, or else we'll sell their assets and close their doors?" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110601/ap_on_...s_obama_autos_2

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 31, 2011 -> 11:08 PM) They've got the east on lock. That's for sure, IMO. Even if Wade "declines," it won't matter because LeBron will be the best player in the game until at least age 30 and Bosh is only 27. Wade is a fall away from being done for an extended period of time. I'm interested to see how he's doing next January-February. That'll be 1.5 seasons (plus a long playoff run) of 40ish minutes of all-out basketball against teams that are giving you their all.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 29, 2011 -> 10:41 PM) Our country is great, but bizarre. Obama can't fix the economy, gas prices are so high, yet he's going to win re-election in a landslide. Is it because the Republican's have such horrific candidates like Palin or ???? Repulicans got nobody to excite anybody. If it's because of race, are there any good African American Republicans to go against Obama?? Nope, because I think any black Republican would be vilified in the black community as being just another rich capitalist crony. It does suck that there's no real threat to Obama (at least not yet, still lots of time for someone to emerge). But as I've said before, the GOP message is so ridiculous that they'll never get the independents/moderates to jump to their side. Credit the Dems from painting all republicans as bible-humping rednecks who hate gays, or ubber rich white elite males who hate anyone without money. I think someone like Newt would be a legitimate positive for the country, since he is focused so squarely on getting the country back on track. He's not concerned with the irrelevant social issues that usually decide these elections. But the latest gaffe he made (which i think was blown a little bit out of proportion, but it still doesn't look good) might have hurt his chances. This is one reason why I think ultimately Palin will fade away come primary time - she has no real legitimate stance on how to fix the economy and get it moving in the right direction. Once these guys get into a debate she's going to get crushed.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 30, 2011 -> 02:46 AM) http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/vide...47cry4hr42v83Vs Heh, Tim Donaghy. You know what's funny is that he's becoming more and more credible over time with his analysis of officiating, despite the fact that he rigged games. It's a lot like Jose Conseco becoming one of the most credible guys about steroids. In the era of youtube and the internet, at some point the league is going to have to clean this stuff up. Once the casual viewer starts to believe the games are rigged, there goes the sport. I think that's where Cuban could make a huge difference if he starts publicly calling out the blown calls.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 27, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) You're glossing over the fact that someone else is also breaking the law in these cases. If we assume your client really is in violation of Title VII, why should he get away with illegal activity just because his target was here illegally? Should gang members be immune from prosecution for killing other gang members? I agree, but the penalty should be not hiring them in the first place. And laws like the one in AZ actually provide employers with more protection against harsher hiring laws because they're forced to take certain steps to make sure they're hiring someone who is legal (or as sure as they can be instead of just taking their word for it).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 27, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) Ongoing case related to illegal immigration and our side-track: Workers who were fired for being illegal immigrants sue Chipotle Workers claim that Chipotle violated labor laws by not paying back-pay quickly enough. I don't see why they shouldn't be afforded the same protections just because they were illegal immigrants (don't know if their case has any merit but that's not relevant). I just don't see why. Again, it's like a gang member suing the gang leader after he got shot during a bust. You're here illegally, working illegally, and the employer hired you illegally. I have absolutely no beef with enacting harsher penalties on employers for hiring illegals, and even more penalties if they systematically take advantage of illegals. But I don't see how or why illegals should be able to use our system to recover from their illegal acts, regardless of their own illegal mistreatment. Edit: And to me the case of something like criminal mistreatment is entirely different because society has accepted the responsibility of treating you fairly in prison. And criminals in prison DO lose a lot of rights precisely because they are criminals. It's not as if taking away basic access to the courts is an absolute right.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 26, 2011 -> 05:32 PM) Then he should be able to get it tossed on those grounds or the fact that its BS. Discrimination shouldn't be excused because the guy did other bad things, that's irrelevant. So why is the robber scenario frivolous? Because that's the same thing. "Just because he did something illegal doesn't mean negligence should be excused."

QUOTE (G&T @ May 26, 2011 -> 10:15 PM) I think the dispells the Lebron can't close garbage. This is bulls***, and unfortunately espn will be hyping this s*** for the next week. The bulls choked three games in this series. Major chokes. The games were f***ing gift wrapped. f*** the refs, f*** the NBA

No foul there on wade

Starting 5 for game 6- rose, brewer, deng, gibson, thomas

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 26, 2011 -> 09:33 PM) Aren't they supposed to be giving the Bulls calls since the NBA usually wants a longer series? Or does Stern want Miami to win earlier so they can rest up and win the title? They want a villain....more ratings

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 26, 2011 -> 04:56 PM) Your statement was broad and general, applying to all 'criminals' and all 'suits', not whatever this particular guy was suing over. What was his suit that you don't think he should be able to bring since he's a criminal? Title VII stuff. And we know he's lying. So despite the fact that he's not here legally, he doesn't report the majority of his income, he has 5 children (while reporting less than 20k in income....so no federal income taxes and I doubt much state, if any), quite confident his "wife" and kids receive a ton of state aid (never married, but again falsified his tax documents, among others), etc etc., he still gets to waste my clients' money defending this case, and your money using the court system.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 26, 2011 -> 04:55 PM) Only if you buy into the "immigrants are leeches on society who come here to get welfare" crap. Nope, just being realistic. Immigrants normally have a lot of children without the means to pay for all of them. Doesn't matter what their intent is, it's that they're here, they have multiple children, and they need public assistance to support their families.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 26, 2011 -> 04:48 PM) Good. We shouldn't reward businesses who are profiting by exploiting poor immigrants. If their business model relies on enriching themselves by paying employees sub-standard wages and relying on their fear of being deported, they should go out of business. And maybe be hanged. I agree with this, and that's why I support a lot of what Arizona is doing. Punish the hell out of businesses that do it and the problem corrects itself pretty quickly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 26, 2011 -> 04:51 PM) Complaints about frivolous lawsuits are quite a bit different from your broad statement that you feel physically ill that criminals can file suit. Well, I did make that statement together with my story so....

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 26, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) Because they are taking jobs that regular citizens cant taken. if a business is paying an illegal $2 an hour, they arent going to hire a non-illegal for $8, they just wont hire anyone. If you stop illegals working in the US, all that will happen is you will have less businesses in the US. The labor supply is an international supply, the US cant believe that it can regulate it and hope that businesses will still stay here without giving them sort of economic advantage. For the most part the biggest reason for companies to move to Vietnam etc is the cost of labor is so much cheaper than the US, that they can make it in Vietnam, ship it to the US, for less than making it in the US. Furthermore, there is no evidence that immigration (legal or illegal) results in the loss of jobs for those in the US. In fact the statics show (as ive provided in other threads) that the US economy has increased the most rapid when there is the highest rate of immigration. Which makes sense because immigrants are not only labor, but they are also consumers. So by having more immigrants you have more consumers, which means more business, which means more jobs. Im not sure which economist it was, but there is a theory that everything adds to the economic pie, so basically more immigrants add to the economy, not take away. The first bolded is crap. Not every illegal alien is some poor mexican making 5 bucks a day. They're everyday people you see on the streets, working blue and white collar jobs. The second bolded I don't think makes any sense or is based on faulty statistics. How do we ever know for sure how many illegals come into the country? Isn't that the whole point? That we don't know how many there really are? And more immigrants = more people to pay for. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see how their "increase" to the economy is a net positive all things considered.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 26, 2011 -> 04:43 PM) People who commit crimes deserve no legal protections, civil or criminal? There's a difference between protections and proactively using the courts for their own benefit. This is akin to a burglar filing a civil suit against the person he stole from from because during the robbery he slipped and fell on the floor and broke a leg. It's idiotic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 26, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) Jesus Christ do you not understand how our legal system works and, more importantly, why? Please.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 26, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) I dont think allowing people to compete for jobs is a race to the bottom. Its just the only way around the unfortunate fact that certain people dont want to allow legal immigration out of fear. How does making it easier for illegal immigrants to work and compete for jobs a GOOD thing, considering we're at 9% unemployment, and we have yet to see any actual, stead net job growth over the last 2-3 years? This thinking is so dumb. We should be working HARDER and making it HARDER for illegals to work here so that the people who are actually citizens or registered guests of this country can work. Funny aside, I was at a deposition this week where a guy flat out admitted that he was an illegal alien (and has been for 20 years), that he falsified his tax returns and that he failed to disclose the majority of his income (cash based). I find it sickening that he can still file a suit despite being a criminal.