Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 12, 2010 -> 09:01 AM) Interesting article on the different approaches that New Mexico and Arizona are taking on this subject. As opposed to SB 1070 in AZ, Richardson and the NM legislature are taking a split approach - more security on the border, but for those immigrants (illegal and legal) that are already in the state, pretty much leaving them alone or even trying to let them become part of society. NM and AZ have different situations of course, but still similar. Which method do you prefer? Or something in between? IMO security is a joke. You beef up security and all it does is force border jumpers to go further away from secure areas. It's using a bandaid to cover up an amputation. My problem with the NM plan is that I don't want to let people continue doing something illegal simply because it's inconvenient/difficult to fix the problem. I'm still miffed that (my) tax dollars go to people that don't pay their share (a general dislike of our current system, but especially with illegals). I'm sympathetic to those that are trying to escape bad areas, but at the same time I'm sure drug cartel controlled areas are no worse than the horrible parts of Chicago. My solution to the immigration problem (broad plan): (1) Overhaul the immigration system - with todays technology it shouldn't take 2-4 years to gain some sort of long-term visa/citizenship. Allow extensions on guest worker programs if those workers meet certain criteria. Beef up the requirements, but make it a faster, more efficient process. (2) Back taxes/fines for those that can prove they have been here working for X number of years (2? 5? 10? dunno what the number should be), along with instant guest worker passes and/or priority for citizenship. Everyone else, deportation. (3) the most important step - HEAVY and MEANINGFUL penalties for those people/businesses that hire illegals. Right now it's a slap on the wrist. There's no incentive to stop paying the cheap labor when the penalty doesn't outweigh the cost savings. Make the penalties crippling to businesses so that they wouldn't even think about doing it anymore. No available jobs = no illegal immigration problem.

Shocking news alert: Cost estimates were wrong Prepare for more of these stories as this thing kicks into gear.

From a Lost nerd, that might have been the most disappointing episode ever. Cheesy, boring, awful acting....ugh. I was hoping for an episode equal to the Alpert flashback. That was a complete miss.

This is actually a big topic for me right now since my fiance and I are moving out of the city and have to decide what to get. We currently have RCN. They were fine until recently when we had a few nights without cable, and the internet has been really spotty during peak times (the 5mbps service). I'm looking to get away from RCN if at all possible. Comcast is so over priced it's ridiculous. 50% off for 6 months and then they jack up the price, not to mention all the "extras" (hd service, dvr, etc) are all more than everyone else. I'd love to get DirecTV (my preference), but then I'd be forced to get slow (3mbps) DSL for 50 bucks a month. The only other option is AT&T Uverse, which I guess is a decent deal. Good channel selection, 6mbps internet, HD/DVR service (and 3 extra HD recievers...all hooked up to the same DVR). My only question is since it basically creates it's own network, if my fiance is watching a DVR program in one room (using bandwidth), and I'm playing Xbox or watching TV in the other, how much does that slow down our interent? Anyone with Uverse have these issues?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 10, 2010 -> 10:58 AM) From what I hear, the online play will be unmatched. The lobby alone sounds like it could be some of the most fun to be had in video gaming. Watch multiple trailers. You can pretty much go anywhere, do anything, from hunting, to killing, to being good or being bad. The way you are perceived relates to how you play (in the game). I've got a few friends who already pre-ordered, and it sounds like getting a posse going is going to be a blast online. I'm excited about that part too, though the gang system of GTA IV sounds like the same, and it was just ok. I remember thinking how much fun it'd be to form a gang and terrorize part of the city, but it was just a meh experience (could have been the people my group ended up playing against though).

QUOTE (T R U @ May 7, 2010 -> 05:25 PM) I don't see why you are all pumped about RDR.. That trailer doesn't look that good.. am I missing something here? Why all the hype.. Cuz it's basically GTA IV set in the west. I have reserved excitement though. The development of the game has been hit or miss. It's been delayed a couple of times and the production of the game has changed hands, so it could be full of problems. But it's starting to gather lots of good pub from people/companies that have previewed it.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ May 7, 2010 -> 10:57 AM) What an absolute crock of s***. If I was a parent of one of those kids I would be livid at the school district. Pssh. Totally insensitive position you're taking there. You know, not all people love America. In fact, some people disagree with America. You're trying to shove your beliefs that America is good and great right down their throats. This is America, we respect other people's beliefs. Jerk. (green)

Good read from the Gov'na

As an update on my other thread, we decided on a place in La Grange. Closing in 2 weeks. Thought about Brookfield (meh), La Grange Park (some meh, some great), but ended up in La Grange. Crazy fast express train downtown, great downtown area, good schools (though *knock on wood* hopefully i dont have to worry about that for a little while longer). Since I did nothing but analyze the area there, feel free to ask questions. I also should say (as indicated in my other thread), that we're moving from Wrigleyville, which, despite the college frat boy douchebags, was actually a really good place to live. Easy commute, tons of nightlife/restaraunts, safe...good spot to start out for sure.

PLEASE keep the spoiler tags if its about unknown stuff, and make it known that you're talking about unknown stuff! I don't want to be tempted to check it out and ruin the surprise.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 4, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) My whole point earlier is that individual outlier events - whether they be highs or lows, rains or storms - are not indiciative of a warming trend, in my eyes. So I was saying, I think Balta's trying to link these floods directly and surely to global warming was almost as silly as the people standing in snow drifts in DC this winter saying SEE, NO WARMING! They are both silly. More useful is general temperature change trends, and those are quite clearly rising. Right, and i'm agreeing with you. I was just showing you that on a daily basis there are record colds that are recorded. If that site went back 5 months, I'm sure I could find you a bunch of places that got at, or near, record lows (including the Chicago or the east coast).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 4, 2010 -> 02:10 PM) While I agree with some of your general train of thought, you are incorrect on the cold end of what happened. There was no record cold, or anything of the sort. There was record SNOW. Very different. http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7d...ax,highmin,snow Look at the amount of low temp records just in the last WEEK. And yeah, the same graph also shows the number of high temp records too (274 v. 203). My point is that if there was some general warming trend, it makes no sense that there would also be low temp records (especially that many). To me that just shows that weather patterns change on a daily basis.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 4, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) Being eligible for citizenship and being a citizen are two very different things. If you illegally enter Europe, leech off their government, get caught...they'll kick you out faster than the US would. But it's not their fault!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2010 -> 12:05 PM) You're half right, but I still disagree on the other half...this is exactly the type of event that you would call a symptom of a changing climate. It was spurred by record temperatures unreachable a few years ago at this point in the season. It broke every record. It's going to look like a small event in another decade or so at business-as-usual. The odds of this event happening 50 years ago were so that it's hardly worth calculating. Now, this really wasn't that extreme of an event, considering how many other temperature records we've broken this year. Wait, so lemme follow this logic train here: Record low temperatures and snow falls = nothing to get excited about Record warming temperatures and rain = proof of the existence of climate change! Ah. I get it now! And what does the bolded even mean? I swear EVERY season we hit records of some sort - hottest day on record, coolest day on record, most rain in a month, most snow in a month....blah blah blah blah blah. It means nothing IMO. Our climate system changes ALL the time and has for however long you think the earth has existed. I just find this whole notion silly since every old person alive can remember the great storm of X, or the great flood of X, or the crazy cold summer in X, or the crazy hot winter in X. It's all so random. If global warming truly existed (in this context) then we'd be seeing ONLY warming records on a SEASONAL basis. We wouldn't see cold temperature/snowfall records thrown into the middle of it. I'm still waiting for all of those devastating category 5 hurricanes and tornadoes that would repeatedly destroy the country. Unless I missed it, we haven't seen ONE in the last 5 years since those fool-proof predictions came out. The Day After Tomorrow showed how it'll happen. I've been anxiously awaiting the inevitable.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2010 -> 10:03 AM) ahh ok. I must have missed where they said that. I like the Ben character better anyways. I'm a little bummed it didn't work out. I think Eko was my 3-4th favorite character behind Locke and Ben and maybe Sayid. His backstory was one of the better ones I thought.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2010 -> 08:47 AM) I think Eko was supposed to have a much bigger role, but the producers will never admit to that Actually they have in various interviews. He was going to be a major character, but Ben kinda took over once he was introduced (and killed those "i'm really creepy don't trust me! scenes)

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ May 3, 2010 -> 04:00 PM) Huh? http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...039&st=5460

QUOTE (knightni @ May 3, 2010 -> 03:00 PM) INCOMING!!!! lol, huge fan of the emoticon.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 3, 2010 -> 02:49 PM) Except when its inside a woman.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2010 -> 10:05 AM) That was a good interview and I think he phrased everything exactly right. Although, he's had several months to prepare. He looked incredibly sad and depressed to me, despite what he said. You could clearly tell that he is still coping with it. His whole, "i'm telling everyone i'm fine, it just didn't work" was just an act. He got the shaft big time, and the worst kind - you're not entertaining enough so we're replacing you. 32 million to sign a piece of paper. must be rough.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 3, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) For those that need some help picking, here is what Answers.com says he has doen so far. LOL. great list. Especially a fan of "Returning science to its rightful place," (really?) "Forge [sic] a meaningful statement from the United Nations" criticizing North Korea's launch of a ballistic missile" (oh! never been done before), "Diminishing the role of lobbyists in the White House" (what? really? when?), and "Engaging world leaders in Europe, Turkey, Latin American and the Caribbean with "strength and humility." (hilarious). So far I've liked: credit card legislation timetable on Iraq lifting ban on stem cell research green energy (would prefer more but ANY movement in that direction is better than none) Things I haven't liked: ecomic stimulus auto bailout healthcare "reform" more troops to Afhganistan failure to provide any meaningful financial reform despite promising to do so. 1.5 years later and STILL waiting for something to be done overall tendency that govt is better/more efficient/smarter/etc than individuals (and that awful quote - you can make too much money and you have a responsibility to give it back)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2010 -> 09:28 AM) The reason I started off with that question is I'm anticipating 2k5's response, because I've seen it before. His correct argument is that it makes no sense why Mexican immigrants should be given a huge advantage coming into this country over the rest of the world when poverty is rampant in so many other places, which is entirely true...but that winds up ignoring the 15 million or so people already here. The solution is pretty well understood overall I'd say, if you accept that deportation is totally impractical for that large of a population. 1. Path to citizenship and legality for the 15 million people already here. Path to citizenship is 100% necessary, because otherwise, the workers are basically put into slavery; the employer can fire them for any reason and force them to be deported if they can't eventually earn citizenship. Pay a fine, register, etc. 2. Very large guest worker program, also with an eventual path to citizenship. Simple reality is...there wouldn't be any immigration problem if there weren't jobs for them, and if you restrict immigration beyond the point where the demand for workers at those wages can be satisfied, you're guaranteed an illegal immigration problem. I think you can quibble with me on the exact details or on the exact numbers, but I think if you try to propose a fix that doesn't do those 2 things, your fix will eventaully fail. You do those 2 things correctly and make the numbers allowed in large enough to satisfy demand, and the "enforcement" options likely become virtually unnecessary. The problem is to what degree do we take those measures? If an illegal has been here working and utilizing all of the benefits of our system (free of charge) but sending all of his money to Mexico, what's the proper penalty? Back taxes? Fines? How long do we go back if he's been here for 20 years? That's the problem with a blanket "lets just create a way for them to stay." And I agree a guest worker program of some sort needs to be implemented, and the path to citizenship should be overhauled. But I'm not exactly against the idea of limiting immigration to a point so that Americans can have a chance at those jobs. I'm not convinced that your average Americans are "too good" for those types of jobs these days.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:39 AM) It's scary how far you guys are willing to go to defend the rights of a few people to ruin the lives of everyone else. It's scary how much you want to control what I can/can't do! Edit: and at least for me, I'm not defending these people, I'm defending the ideas we're talking about.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:37 AM) So, basically, your argument is that the real mistake we've made was taking power out of the hands of small groups of elites and giving it to the masses. Anyway...you're right to some extent but you're wrong to another...yes they tried to restrict voting to landowners...but they could easily have made things much, much more restrictive to protect their own influence and power. That was not done. And unless you'd like to argue against the 14th amendment, the trend from there has been to try to move power away from the elites by legislation/amendment (although there are steps taken the other way, like Citizens United) I'm just saying they designed the system against what Obama just said. They wanted free reign to do whatever they wanted to do. They were tired of being forced to give back portions of their earnings. They were all businessman, and I guarantee you most of them would take issue with the fact that a President told them they made too much money and had a responsibility to give some of it back.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:31 AM) BTW, here's the 100% full text. Whoa. Ground breaking. All great talking points except the adlib part. Does anyone really argue against the fact that Wall Street should be (and should have been) more responsible since they have so much power? I haven't heard anyone make that case.