Jenksismyhero

So, what does everyone think? We're just a few days away from the day that Iran becomes a nuclear power. Thoughts? Clearly Bolton doesn't like the idea: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Ar....aspx?id=185060

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 16, 2010 -> 03:33 PM) what what? i said hardly any. if we were just going to throw money at construction projects it should have been used to update bridges or ports or canals or whatever else is 10 years away from falling apart.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 16, 2010 -> 01:39 PM) Note that I said "poorly executed", not that it was a bad idea generally. Yes, it phased things in. Yes, the cash influx helped stave off deflation, though I am not 100% sure that was as big a danger as it was hyped to be. Poorly executed means the details weren't well done. You could have had both those benefits AND built something more sustainable, if the stim bill had less emphasis on temporary construction jobs and more on long term business efforts. The stimulus was an absolute waste. 750 billion dollars of spending, and hardly any of it went towards infrastructure improvement (what, 50 billion worth?) I gave you the list the other day of wasteful spending (so far). Thanks for repaving that highway in the middle of central illinois Mr. President. Way to keep those government employees on the job working on unecessary projects. That really helped. The stimulus has been a complete fail to this point. It was sold to the American people as a necessary evil to create jobs. It's created nothing to this point. Unemployment has gone up since that bill was signed, not down.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 16, 2010 -> 01:31 PM) The "bailout", as in TARP, was not only a necessity, but it was one of the more successful programs the government put in place in recent memory. They allocated $750B, used only about $200B, have gotten back almost $150B of that with interest, and will probably only have a final cost of around $40B last I looked. And considering the dire consequences of inaction, that was highly worth it. Now the Stim bill, on the other hand, was poorly executed and a huge wasted opportunity. My issue with the bailout was the fact that they pushed it through without thinking. They basically said, ok wall street, you really f***ed yourself (and the country in the process), so we're going to bail you out. But there was no step 2 in the planning. They could have used that opportunity to set some major reforms and requirements to get that money, but instead it was short-term loans and then back to business as usual, especially for the biggest financial institutions in the country.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 16, 2010 -> 01:13 PM) I said a lot more, not singularly. The Dems do it too, just not to the same extent. That's my read on it. And the bailout stuff started under Bush anyway, and that was fear that was pretty well founded. sorry, i meant the stimulus bill, not the bailout. though both were equally retarded IMO

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 16, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) I'll ignore the "Obama's crazy spending" part since his spending has been no more crazy than his predecessor. But you are right on the first part - there is very little difference. The Dems ran in 2008 on, primarily, we aren't Bush. The GOP is running primarily in 2010 on "we aren't Obama". There is some subtle difference, in that the GOP has been a lot more about blockading and bringing government to a halt, where as the Dems capitulated to a lot of GOP s*** in Bush's time - for good or for bad. But the overall themes are mostly similar. Actually, I'll add one more important difference, and this one is one of the reasons why its been a lot harder for me to vote GOP the last few cycles. The GOP has focused a lot more on fear and anger, the lowest common denominators, than the Dems have. That does bother me. So to push the bailout and healthcare reform Obama and the dems weren't selling the "omg if we don't do something there's going to be a catastrophe?" line? I mean i agree, the GOP is running with (not creating, a key difference) the anger of its base about the policies being implemented. But we're talking about basic political tactics here.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 16, 2010 -> 12:09 PM) It's just proof that the GOP really has nothing to run on. There's no plan to help get the economy moving with them. Their strategy has and will be obstruction, period. 80 days out and instead of the focus being on the economy, the focus is on mosques. Please. Like any party has actual policy to run on. The GOP is using the playbook of the Dems in 2004 and 2008 - b**** and moan without offering any real alternatives other than the opposite of what's happening now. (And it's not like the Dems came up with that tactic on their own). And what more is there to say on the economy? It still sucks and Obama's crazy spending hasn't helped anything.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 13, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) So because its not reality, we shouldnt strive to make it reality? Why not start the process of moving towards a goal of eliminating illegal immigration? You dont end illegal immigration by having bigger fences, or making it a felony, or whatever punishment you want to give it. You end illegal immigration by making legal immigration so easy that it would be stupid to immigrate illegally. Sure some people would still do it, but the vast majority would legally immigrate, which would be the first step to solving the problem. Not everyone (including me) thinks American citizenship is just a worthless designation given to anyone that shows up to the border.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 13, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) Yep, nope. Not at all saying "the way you people think is just like them Nazi's used to think before they rounded up zee Jews in the gas chambers." I'm attacking your illogical position, and busting balls because you make, IMO, a retarded and unfounded comparison. And whether you intended to or not, what you're really saying is, you people that want to restrict citizenship even more are just like those 1935 Germans (Nazi's) that ultimately killed 6 million Jews. Why make the statement that the reasoning used by people like me for restricting American citizenship are the same ones used by Germans to restrict Jewish citizenship? At the very least you're saying I think and reason like a Nazi, even if you didn't call me a Nazi straight out.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 13, 2010 -> 03:11 PM) My argument is to get rid of illegal immigration (allow for legal immigration). So that number supports my argument. By not allowing legal immigration, you have 100 billion a year of costs. If we were to get rid of illegal immigration, youd have 100 billion a year of savings. I wont even look to prove your numbers, because your numbers just supported my argument. Thanks! Lol, obviously there would be no illegal immigration problem if everyone became a citizen tomorrow. But that's not reality.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 13, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) Id like to see some numbers to support this. For the sake of argument Im willing to concede that many immigrants may be in the lower levels of income. I disagree that it will have the results you claim unless provided with proof. Furthermore, I do not believe that economic wealth should be a factor in deciding whether or not some one is deserving of freedom. If my family is rich, should I get to make rules that force poor people to leave? According to you they are a negative to me, so why cant we just change the law to remove anyone who isnt in the top 10% of earners? Wouldnt that make my life easier? Not to mention Ive consistently stated that immigrants should not get benefits unless they pay in. This would solve all of the problems you suggest are going to be created. If none of the 20million immigrants are eligible for social security, how will they collect it? I have yet to see one argument made about how it will cost the US more money to legalize immigrants, when compared to how much it costs to enforce immigration. If the legal immigrant is getting no benefits, having to pay taxes and the US govt is spending less money, that should create more revenue for the US. Lowering expenses while increasing revenue is simple finances. I guess I just dont fear poor people and how much of a drain they will be on me or my family. But if we are getting to make rules because people are poor, Id like to make them against US citizens as well. Maybe we should weigh votes based on your income level. The higher the income, the more weight your vote has. That way we can really show all those poor people. It would be nice to finally get rid of all those people who earn less then me. (I hope you can sense the sarcasm.) Google "cost of illegal immigration" and you have figures around 100 billion A YEAR. Really I think you guys are just ignoring common sense here. Let's take the uber minimum and say it costs 10 billion a year. That's 10 BILLION f***ING DOLLARS a year. Arizona alone supposedly spent 2 BILLION DOLLARS on illegals. What a SHOCK they'd want to change the law to prevent illegals from coming in and to deal with those they find. And Balta, your point on the spending of bordal control is a good one, but you assume people want to maintain that level of spending continuously into the future. As SSK said, put some MEANINGFUL penalties on employers (i.e., business crippling penalties), and some MEANINGFUL penalties on illegals that are caught and I think you'd see a dramatic change. Would illegal immigration continue? Sure. But not anywhere near the rate it would otherwise. Look at the response Arizona's law got. Illegals wanted out of the state as quickly as possible. Soxbadger, I respect your view on freedom, but in reality, there's tough choices to be made. When we have 10-15% of people in this country on unemployment, and even more on government assisted living, 10 billion isn't pocket change.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 13, 2010 -> 02:52 PM) Really? Please provide the specific quote of where I say "if you think X, you are Y", please find anything even remotely similar to that. My statement was: Youll notice an important part of the post states "If you let THEM". Notice how I did not specifically state anyone in the thread nor anyone in the debate, as I was not making specific reference to anyone in the thread. But keep playing the victim like Jenksismyb****. I made a very apt comparison to how the in 1935 Germany they restricted citizenship. I have no clue how that suggests I am calling anyone a Nazi. I dont believe I even said anything like "These people are Nazis". I just merely pointed out a historical correlation. If you feel that any of these statements offended or were directed at you, that was your own conclusion. There is nothing in any of my statements that remotely suggests I am calling anyone a racist or a Nazi. But if you guys want to play the victim card, feel free, not like it is going to persuade me to take it easy on your argument. Come on, you're a lawyer. Extend the logic. What's the point in making the correlation unless you want that comparison to be made. You're saying "here's a bunch of people who think shutting down the borders is a good idea. Well you know who else used to think that? Nazi's." (and I pretended you said this line with Brad Pitt's accent in Inglorious Bastards) And play the victim card? I could care less if you agree or disagree with my opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyones got em. Doesn't mean I can't point you out for making a ridiculous "historical correlation."

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 13, 2010 -> 09:58 AM) mmmmm dooodz lol, poor wording on my part.

So Pippen gets into the Hall of Fame this weekend. Gotta say, after reading a lot about him this week, I forget how great he was. Jordan was obviously everyone's favorite, but Scottie was always 1b to Jordan's 1a in my book. Some

My dad and I have a boat out in Monroe harbor. I think over the last 2-3 years, we've spent DAYS of collective time trying to catch salmon out in the lake, and have caught exactly one. We've tried to research the best times, the best places, the best lures, etc, but no luck. Not sure what the issue is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 13, 2010 -> 07:12 AM) He was talking about the 14a thread, for some reason he posted that here. He said multiple times that, basically, the only motivation for changing 14a was racism. Its the old "if you think X, you are Y" argument, its just a roundabout way of saying "you are Y". don't forget you're a Nazi for thinking that way too.

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Aug 13, 2010 -> 08:30 AM) EA's so sleazy I wouldn't be shocked (though I think the injuries needed to be more frequent in past versions). The thing that irks me personally is that to get NBA Jam on the PS3/360 (Not even a full version, mind you), you have to buy NBA Elite 11. I thought the same thing with NCAA Football 10/11. You could pay for a better chance at landing recruits, which basically meant that it was pretty difficult to pull top recruits into your school. Maybe that wasn't real, but it sure seemed that way.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 13, 2010 -> 08:36 AM) Taking the wife to see "Eat, Pray, Love", tonight. Hoping to eat up a solid dinner beforehand, praying that the movie is ok, and gonna get some sweet lovin' out of this. lol, zing! My fiance read the book and loved it. Though, I suspect it's because she liked the idea of every day woman deciding "hey screw this real job thing" to travel the world, eating good food and finding spiritual peace (and some dudes in the process). Who wouldn't like that?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 12, 2010 -> 09:29 AM) Here's a much more detailed and legalist description of what exactly the jury is probably struggling with. Yeah I can't imagine that's the case. Those instructions are not that complicated (perhaps being a litigation attorney helps when reading this stuff, but really it's just about seperating clauses and taking it one at a time) and if i recall correctly the jury had a pretty good selection of educated people. I think the main issue is that most of the evidence the government provided was circumstantial. There's no check with Blago's name on it. There's some small amount of money Patti got, but not much of a trace to how it got there. You just had a lot of evidence of Blago talking and how he worked as governor. No doubt they established that Blago sounds like a corrupt, dirtbag politician (like they all are). I thought it was brilliant for the defense to use the tactic - "yeah, he talked about this stuff, no denying that. but you know this guy. you've seen him on tv before. he talks and boasts about EVERYTHING. doesn't mean he meant what he said." But is that enough to say that he actually committed fraud or conspired to commit fraud? There's a real fine line there. It's not illegal to say that the power to appoint someone to the senate is f***ing golden. The government had to link that to actual benefits recieved, or at the very least an attempt to recieve. Dunno if they did enough to prove the first, but I think there's probably enough for the second. (though admittedly I did not follow the case every day like I thought I would) I'd imagine the issue is that on most counts the jury agrees that he's guilty, but on some of the harder counts, the juror(s) holding out don't think there is enough there.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 04:07 PM) Again. How does a traffic cop become an expert in spotting a fake birth certificate? My original one looks nothing like the duplicate I had ordered. How many variations of them are there? How many can spot a fake ID? They'll be trained to look for things, some will get missed, but the majority won't. How is that an argument against not doing it? You really think everyone would get away with it?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 04:01 PM) Well if you count something like a birth certificate you're telling me a traffic cop could tell if it's a forgery? How many different types of birth certificates are there? And you would feel comfortable carrying yours around with you or leaving it in your car? So 5% of people get away with it. Just like a small percentage of people probably get away with using fake drivers licenses, ss numbers, birth certificates, etc. Doesn't mean we shouldn't enact the law to get the rest of the 95% of illegals who won't get away with it. You're just providing inconveniences, not arguments. So long as the requirement is the same for everyone, I dunno how a court could over turn it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:58 PM) What do you constitute as proof of citizenship? What does it matter? Make it 10 documents, who cares, a requirement is a requirement, no different than having to provide proof of a license and proof of insurance during a stop.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:55 PM) California a few years ago had a large debate over a proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses...the proposal came about basically because the population of unlicensed illegals who either didn't know the rules of the road or who didn't care to follow them because they were driving illegally anyway was making a complete mess of California's highway system. Plus, it brought illegals into the system by requiring that they also have automobile insurance. The bill was repealed by the current Governor upon taking office. I love this attitude of "whelp, it'd be a b**** to do, so lets just forget about it." That's called American Justice baby.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:55 PM) So you're advocating people carry their birth certificate or other very important documents in their car? That would be a field day for identity thieves. Lol, so basically you'll just keep making up inconveniences because the law would be effective at catching illegals? I think if you have to provide a drivers license and insurance registration than it's not any more inconvenient to provide proof of citizenship.

So basically because the law would be TOO effective it's not a good idea?