Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 12:35 PM) Sorry maybe I misread that part where you suggested he fix the problem. Again, what should he do to fix it? So far, all I've got from you is "have longer meetings." Again, requiring a redundant blowout preventer would have potentially averted this catastrophe. Also requiring relief wells to be drilled at the same time would have potentially minimized the damages to this disaster. So yeah, more regulation could have really helped here. It's not just about being able to shut something down as much as it is also about minimizing damage when disaster happens. I'm not a scientist or an engineer, so I'm not sure what specific things he can/should do. But unless you're suggesting that he's no longer needed, there's SOMETHING he could be doing, like speaking to BP about his (our) concerns for longer than 20 minutes. And enforcing existing regulation would have prevented this thing from happening as well. Again, why would words on a piece of paper mean jack to a company that clearly skirted the rules and were allowed to because that oh-so-efficient government can't/won't/didn't do its job? Sweet. From now on these wells have to have a redundant blowout preventer. Hell, mandate they have 10 of them. That still requires the company to install it and the government to make sure that it gets installed. IMO there's an equal chance that this type of thing happens again because a blowout preventer fails and because a company gets greedy, works on the cheap, and the gov't fails to catch them.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 12:12 PM) There does need to be more regulation. For example, why doesn't the US require relief wells to be drilled at the same time as main exploratory wells? Other countries require it. Maybe you could point out exactly what makes deepwater drilling in US waters more unfriendly than say drilling in the North Sea off the UK or Scandinavian coastlines? "Heavily regulated" is not the word that I would use given that the MMS didn't require backup blowout preventers, delayed testing to accomodate business schedules, etc. The MMS does need to be reformed too. It's obviously corrupted, and from what I understand, understaffed given the complexity of what they do. So the MMS failed to do its job, the head of the organization was fired, Obama accepted responsibility. He is looking to fix that small agency that's been riddled with corruption for decades. Is it unacceptable that the corruption was left to fester for the first 18 months of his administration? Absolutely. But maybe you can tell me what more Obama can do? How can he fix the catastrophe? What exactly could possibly be done? Maybe you can share that with us. more regulation = WORTHLESS. Everything I read leads me to believe that inspectors could have shut this thing down based on current regulation, so clearly adding more requirements isn't gonna do jack if BP can't even follow minimum requirements. It's a freakin' joke to sit there and tell the american people that what we need is more useless words on pages when the problem was that people tasked with enforcing the law weren't doing their jobs (see also, the SEC). And i'm not disagreeing that the MMS needs to be reformed. My comment was basically that Obama is pulling a Bush, just after the fact. He's a guy with good managerial and reforming skills IN OTHER AREAS, which was exactly like Michael Brown, who ended up being a scapegoat for corrupt state/local officials and just plain retarded people who couldn't figure out that living below sea level + massive hurricans and increased risk of flooding = danger. And I've already told you its BP's problem to FIX the leak. I'm complaining that Obama didn't act fast enough (which you admitted as well). And I’m sure spending 20 minutes with BP this morning was really beneficial. Seriously? When I conduct meetings the introductions barely end before 20 minutes. What a joke.

AND, how about a meeting with BP that lasts longer than 20 minutes...

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 10:57 AM) If all we expect out of a President anymore is the ability to constantly react with the adequate form of emotion publicly, we're all f***ed as a people. Could Obama's response have been better? Hell yes! Can he stop the oil? Hell no! And frankly, the worst part about this is that short of him putting on a wetsuit and diving down a mile to that pipe with a bucket of spackle, nothing is gonna stop a lot of people (with other axes to grind) from saying he isn't doing enough about this. But what does he do to make this better? Kick BP out of the gulf? Then its a government takeover and OMG SOCIALISM! Strengthen oversight over sea drilling and make regulation and oversight over this dangerous work much more strict. Then its government expansion and OMG SOCIALISM! He can't even take over the claims process for damages from this disaster without people complaining that it isn't the government's role. People on the left are calling for his head because he isn't as liberal as he imagined. People on the right are calling for his head because the conservative punditocracy has moved so far to the right that Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO these days. The radicalization of our country on both sides of the fence is pretty sickening. I say this as a left wing liberal who is unafraid to stand up for the principles I believe in. But I also say this as a pragmatist by nature who recognizes that although polemics like me in this country have an important role, ideological purity doesn't help you run a country. What does he do better? How about fixing the problem instead of using this catastrophe to institute his agenda? Didn't you find it hilarious that during his speech last night he railed against the MMS for failing to do their job, and then his response is that there needs to be MORE regulation? How totally inconsistent is that? We’ll just add more law to this heavily regulated industry, but THIS TIME we’ll have people ENFORCE it. Oh wait. That’s exactly what didn’t happen before. (on a side note, love that no one is griping about his selection of an ex-federal prosecutor to run a division set with the task of regulating the oil industry. Let’s see, someone with great managerial experience in a different industry, but not in the industry that they’ve been selected to lead….kinda reminds me of another appointment people had problems with. Michael Brown perhaps?) But I know. The government will get it right this time around!

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jun 15, 2010 -> 09:08 PM) Since the election, Kap every liberal like so many others has become an abyss of negativism, narcissism, and knowitall-ism, there's little point in arguing with him them. Has Obama Bush made massive errors on this? Presumably. Is Obama Bush , in comparison to previous Presidents (or other options in the 2008 2000 and 2004 elections), bereft of the competence required to handle an issue like this. No, but no single individual, or organization could control such a cluster-f. Agree with that fixed. (Pretty f'n hilarious how that's the EXACT same crap that was going on 4 years ago, only with the sides switched) And btw, just to clarify, you can't be "criminally negligent." Negligence is a civil tort. Criminal you have to violate a law. I disagree with Kap that Obama was negligent, but I do think his response was pretty pathetic (and equally bad as Katrina). In reality, is there anything more he could (or should) have done regarding the leak itself? No. That's all on BP. But it should not have taken him 2 months to get "pissy" about it and use his powers as President to force the issue. He's also made some pretty retarded statements which shows he's not the savior everyone wanted/wants him to be, e.g., saying he wouldn't meet with BP leaders. Also, his speech last night was a bunch of fluff BS. ZERO substance, as per usual. He's a great idealist, unfortunately he hasn't a clue how to achieve the goals he promises. And it's awesome that he's going to set up an independent third party to mediate all the claims BP is going to be forced to pay. I could have sworn we had one of those (the court system), but apparently he'd rather have a politically led committee hand out money to people based on Obama's terms, not the law. Remember though, Republicans=evil corporate lackeys!!

Lol, i liked it.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jun 15, 2010 -> 03:29 PM) and i think your idea of paying a fine is a fair and good one. But many feel that this is still some level of amnesty. As for not paying their share of the cost three issues come to mind.. 1) Many US Citizens dont pay their share of the cost either. (huge tax breaks, poor people, elderly, etc) 2) If these "illegal" people are working legitimate jobs (restaurants, hotels, packing plants etc) that means that they are getting a paycheck and not being paid in cash. To have their employer cut them a check, they've provided them with fake social security numbers. So in fact, they are paying income tax as its being deducted from them automatically. They buy goods/services at the stores so they are paying sales taxes too. And if they are renting apartments, their rental contributes to property taxes that the landlord is paying. 3) If they in jobs in which they are paid in cash, thus no income taxes are deducted, then I can also think of plenty of US citizens and jobs where a large portion of income is coming in in cash too. I'm sure much of that income (and we're not talking about $5/hr) is not having taxes accounted for too. Here's a quick comment from a recent Newsweek Article... Clinton didn't mention it, but it's not just legal immigrants who contribute to the plus side of the Treasury's balance sheet. In fact, undocumented immigrants are even more lucrative for the government, particularly Social Security. Many undocumented workers have payroll taxes automatically withheld from their wages, but because they use fake numbers, never collect the benefits. Yeah, I mean we all know that in reality illegals are no worse (and are sometimes better) than our own worthless citizens, but that doesn't justify them coming into the country illegally.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jun 15, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) i just wonder about the actual crime that's being committed by these people. Is it trespassing Is it loitering Basically, unless they are doing other "bad" things, their crime is cutting the line. Rather than waiting their turn with INS, they took things into their own hands and came across the border without permission. The other thing I wonder about is, for those people to whom this is a gigantic issue, what do you want to do about it? Assume that there are 10 million people who cut the line, do you want the Federal Government to hire 1,000,000 bounty hunters to track them down to deport them? It's a seperate offense: Title 8 Section 1325 I'd like them to pay their share or go back home. It being difficult to do isn't a justification for illegal activity. I agree that in the grand scheme of things, cutting in line as you put it isn't THAT big of a deal. The problem is what they do when they get here, which is accept the benefits of being a US citizen without paying their share of the cost.

Ha, I just bought NHL 10 because Kane was on the cover. I suck at that game btw. Anyone have any pointers? In 4 season games I've scored 2 goals, the computer has scored about 8.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 13, 2010 -> 09:34 PM) Getting hit with a baseball from 60 feet away can kill you. Why would a baseball sized rock be any different? There is a difference - rocks are more dangerous.

I think you guys are being WAY too hard on him. As others have said, he's 21 and on top of the world right now. Was it the most professional thing to do? No. But he's 21, not 35. I'm guessing about 90% of guys out there would be doing the same thing. Also, GMAFB on the kids/role model argument. First, it's a sport that condones fist fights and cheap shots. Not exactly a perfect lesson on how to live life. And second, ANY professional sports celebration involves drowning yourself and others in beer and champagne. I think kids are smart enough to know that alcohol is fine for celebratory purposes, which is what he was doing.

I said MLB. Too many teams, no cap, whole sport geared towards getting about four teams in the Series every year.

this cracked me up: http://deadspin.com/5561311/patrick-kane-a...-in-drunkenness

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 03:23 PM) the following is heavyhanded, but drives home the core of the point: Jenksismyb**** 1963: "Yeah, okay, I understand that some people may feel blacks should be able to enter the same areas as whites, but this Martin Luther King Jr guy broke the law! Where is the outrage over that?" lol, really?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 02:35 PM) You missed his point. Completely. Your analogy is only valid if he feels laws against robbing the bank and anti-robbing policy is fundamentally flawed. No, I got his point, I just don't agree. Like I said, I agree that the system is messed up and should be better. That doesn't mean I sympathize with someone that complains about life being hard because they chose to do something illegal. This isn't minor traffic law we're talking about. They've illegally entered our country, utilized our services without paying a dime, and get the benefit of reproducing so that their kids can be citizens. And they're complaining that this law now means they'll be targeted and inconvenienced? Boo-hoo.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 02:21 PM) You said jobs are jobs. I showed that all jobs are not equal. We've steadily better jobs overseas than we have created here. We have allowed legal immigrants to work high dollar jobs and complain about someone taking a minimum wage job. A job is NOT a job. There are huge differences between jobs. You knew what I meant. You were claiming that people wouldn't take those jobs and that business might get hurt. My point was and is that someone will fill those jobs because they are jobs and people need them. There is no law out there that says only illegals will work those jobs.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 12:48 PM) GMAFB jenks, you are SHOCKED that we are sympathetic to these people even though they broke a law? Think of other laws that people have broken that you are still sympathetic to. If I am against the policy, why wouldn't I show the poor affects of that policy as a reason why it's a stupid approach. No, I don't really care that they are breaking a law. Then what's the point of having laws? Christ. Next time someone robs a bank and gives the excuse that he's going through a rough time i guess we should just forgive him and feel bad for him. Nevermind that 99% of the rest of the country gives a damn and follows laws.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 12:05 PM) The point is, an out of work financial planner who was earning $75,000 annually is not switching careers and working in a nursery for 20 years. Those are not equal jobs. Replacing $50,000 jobs with $20,000 isn't equal at all. What does this have to do with anything? So because a lawyer doesn't want to become a McDonalds cashier we should allow people to act illegally? SOMEONE will fill those jobs. And if those employers can't find workers, guess what, they'll have to give more incentives. That's how the system works (and should work).

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 11:48 AM) Actually jobs are not jobs. There are people who have been out of work for months, even years, that would not take a nursery job, or a packing shed job, or a meat packing job . . . Completely fabricated. Show me a report that says those jobs wouldn't be filled. SOME people might feel too high and mighty for those jobs, but not EVERYONE.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 10:25 AM) After he moves from Arizona, I wonder who will be taking his job and if the nursery owner will think it imporved his business. laws be damned! if it's good for business, it's ok! I'm seriously shocked that so many people are ok with illegals in this country. I agree that our tight control over immigration isn't in the American spirit, so I join those that think the process for citizenship/visas/guest worker programs needs to be changed to become more efficient and shorter in time. But this attitude that defying laws because of x, y, and z is just laughable. "My kids need an xbox so I'm going to rob a bank. Don't worry! It's ok! I'm just helping my family! The ends justify the means!" Ridiculous. I feel ZERO sympathy for this guy. Ya know what? Do things the right way and you don't have to be worried about it. And when did this completely unfounded position that illegals are the ONLY people that would take those jobs start? That's just made up bulls***. Jobs are jobs, and if there's demand for it, someone will fill the position. That's a ridiculous excuse to justify people committing illegal acts.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 12:50 PM) One thing ESPN mentioned was that their TV deal sucked From my reading, it's not so much that it sucked, it's more that the Big Ten Network became a huge success that no one really expected. It generates an additional 6-7 million per school I think. Seperately the Pac-10 and Big 12 can't compete, but they're hoping that together they can offer a "PTN" with Fox that'll be as good as the BTN. I'm guessing it won't be anywhere near as succesful, but it'll be better than what they have right now.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) Yeah, who'd want a s***ty Iowa State athletics program that ranks ahead of Illinois in the Director's Cup. It's not about how good they are, it's about how many fans/tv viewers they can bring. Iowa is covered already. The only way Iowa St. gets an invite is if the Big Ten needs another school after some others have declined the offer.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 11:24 AM) It does differ. He was not "surrounded" in any sense. I disagree and I don't think he meant surrounded so literally. Even from 50 yards away, the guy is totally exposed out in the open and allegedly is getting pelted by rocks. He's got no where to go. I don't think he meant that they were rushing at him from all sides. That doesn't gel with the fact that the kid was 50 feet away when he got shot. Again, the dude might have done something horrible. But i'll wait until an investigation is complete before I charge the guy based on a crappy cell phone video.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 11:05 AM) Odd to see so many defending the killing of a 14 year old kid. I consider people innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. This video doesn't help either side.

Colorado gone.