Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:30 AM) And then...they set up a system that gave a disturbing amount of power to the masses. No, they didn't. They gave power to people with money and land. They designed the system so that small groups of elite could always control what was going on to protect themselves from government. They gave power to individual states to decide what worked best for them. That's why I said yesterday they'd be spinning in their graves if they knew how much government invaded everyones lives today.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:21 AM) The question I'd then ask next, evil communist that I am is...is it a good thing or a bad thing for the rest of the economy if people keep making money past the point that they'll never be able to spend it? If the current market setup was actually allocating funds efficiently, you might be able to give me a coherent argument that it's not a problem because even then those funds will be re-invested and continue creating jobs. Right now though...you're going to have a whole lot of issues arguing that one...because of how many vacant, collapsing, unsold houses that this country is sitting on. The country wouldn't exist if this thinking was prevelant when it started. All the founding fathers were some ubber rich mother f***ers that were pissed because big government was trying to take that away from. Interesting how back then it was a horrible thing, but now it's a good thing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 09:16 AM) 2k5 interpreted it as saying that "you should only be able to make so much money". The key word there to me is "Should" which stresses that 2k5 believes Obama is suggesting there's a limit to what should be allowable. Another obvious interpretation is...at some point, you've made so much money that another few hundred million makes no difference to your lifestyle and you'd never notice the difference or be able to spend it. I mean, I agree he doesn't come out and say "once you make 100 million you can't make anymore." But I think 2k5 is basically saying what I got out of it - the guy is adlibing, so he's giving you an indication of what he actually thinks (taking away the PR bulls***), and it's that people in this country make too much money and apparently have some sort of responsibility towards everyone else (nope, not socialist minded at all!) edit: SOME people make too much money I mean

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2010 -> 08:36 AM) And you guys accuse me of taking things out of context. What's another meaning you can take from what he said?

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) Looks like a really good rental. As I told a friend, if you got a Saturday night to drink or whatever and just play a marathon of 5-6 hours, it's a great time. But it's really tough to stay engaged playing an hour here or there like I did. On a different note, I'm getting really excited about Red Dead Redemption. GTA IV set in the old west. I like.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) That would mean that state/local employees were making a very small fraction of what private sector does. That seems as hard to believe as the 119k avg federal salary number, which is highly suspect. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if gov't employee compensation is above private sector now. That is entirely plausible. I dunno, I mean I think once you start including low level local jobs (think middle of nowhere librarian or something), it makes sense that the average drops dramatically. What's the comparable federal job? Post office worker? Once you add in pensions and pay scales, I bet those guys make near 6 figures by the time they retire. And the average salary being 119k....seems a litle high. Congressional aides make up to 170k (I figured about 50k tops). There's a TON of money to be made as a federal employee in Washington for sure.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 01:13 PM) Interesting, but, explain this to me: The article first states that the average federal salary is like 119k, then quotes the commerce department saying its 52k. Sort of makes me question the validity of the data. The first is federal employee versus private sector employee, the second is federal/state/local government employee versus private sector employee.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 12:55 PM) I am not an originalist when it comes to the Constitution. I do think Madison and Co. wrote perhaps the greatest plan in history. Our protection from unconstitutional laws being passed is the judicial branch. But we don't seem to want judges that will rule any laws as unconstitutional. That would be an activist agenda. We also do not seem to want our watchdogs, the press, to report on that stuff either. I do find some irony is the pro-union party that wants more government restrictions on businesses wants to allow them greater access to employees. Getting back to the Constitution, IIRC, and I do, the original intent of the Constitutional Convention in 1783 was to rewrite the Articles of Confederation. Madison, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and others charted a course to eliminate the Articles and form a strong central government. Our very Constitution whittled away state's rights in favor of this strong federal government. And look at the compromises that started even before it was put in place. A senate with equal representation, and a house with proportional. This gave both sides what they wanted. Hell, we even started counting slaves as 3/5ths. I believe I agree with SS that we are slowly sliding down a terrible path of giving up our rights. The logic is always the same. If we can save/stop/prevent one x,y,z then the inconvenience is worth it. In over 200 years we've only amended the Constitution a couple dozen times. I'm confident if the founding fathers were alive today they'd be scared s***less of the power of the federal government, the role of the media, and the complete lack of institutional control that exists in our system. The idea wasn't to have a central government that invaded every single aspect of your life. The goal wasn't to let the government tell you what is right/wrong, what is protectable/what is not protectable. The whole system was designed to protect citizens from their government, not citizens from each other (that was left to the states). What we have today is entirely different than what was intended IMO.

Well that's cool, public jobs outpay private jobs now

So I finally finished Heavy Rain. I'd give it a 7/10. Awesome graphics and a decent story. I liked the attempt at a new style of game. There was some great tension build-up in certain scenes that really got my heart racing. Problem is that game should have been about $25 max, not $60. You basically watch a movie and touch buttons. They kinda made it so that you had options in certain scense, but I dunno how much of them really altered the storyline until the end of the game (clearly allowing certain characters to die is big, but those types of consequences are few and far between). I failed a few times on purpose and found that you just hit different buttons to end at the same place by the end of the scene. And sometimes I felt like certain scenes didn't really connect well. You'd play one character, finish that scene, switch to another character, and suddenly they'd be linked without much explanation as to how that happened (particularly at the end of the game). Also, the voice acting was pretty awful. Why couldn't they get Americans to do American voices? Still, something different than the typical game.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 10:26 AM) via Is your tactic with arguments to make politicians/political parties look like fools? Cuz you know, I think if you polled people here, 99.9% would agree that all politicians and parties are assbackwards dumb. They're ALWAYS inconsistent. I'm sure if I had the extra time/energy I could throw out all sorts of inconsistent things Obama has said over the years to "prove" how retarded he must be. But it adds nothing to the debate.

So far this is Obama's policy: To the poor -don't worry, everyone will pay for everything for you, cuz life is tough, and we understand. Keep those cell phone plans, the cars and houses you can't afford, no problem. We got your back. People with money are evil! To the rich - whoa there! You make way too much money. Give it back. The poor deserve that money. It's your responsibility to give it to them. To everyone else - You don't get anything. Keep slaving away to pay your share and to help out with everyone less fortunate than you. Ah. The American Dream.

LOL http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100429/D9FCDCN00.html

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 02:46 PM) You are missing G&T's point. Bad faith is more than just failing to enforce some specific law. Those cases just don't fly, they can't possibly, otherwise you could sue every cop in the country for things they do every day. The law not specifying indemnity to individual officers isn't there because it is about protecting the agency. The officer needs no protection here because he's not liable in the type of situation you mention. Most states, like Illinois, have a ton of public immunity statutes that provide individual employees of municipalities/governments from being sued unless there's more than just negligence. That would cover 99% of what a cop would do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 01:31 PM) Certainly true that there won't be a lawsuit filed against a single police officer for not checking that. However, the individual police officer is going to have to do the checks that his municipality insists upon, correct? If the city/county/state puts out rules saying that the officer doesn't have to do a detailed check, that opens them up at that level to legal action. On the other hand, if the city/county/state puts out the most stringent rules possible, then either the officer goes forward in all cases with a full, detailed check of all documents or the officer is violating his rules. The law gives a person a right to sue the state/agency that adopts/implements a policy that is less than Federal Law. It doesn't involve individual police officers, or their actions. They could do whatever they want and never get sued for it (in the context of this law). It's all about the agency/office (and I think maybe the head of that agency/office). You've been harping on this point for 2 days now. Where are you getting this from?

I'm 13-2 on the season. Beckham just got hurt though, out 2 months

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 09:32 AM) I'm pretty well read on current events and since the inception of the Tea Party I have yet to hear a speech, read an article, see a misspelled sign in a crowd, etc. that slams out of control military spending. I actually saw quite a few at the rally in Chicago a week or so back.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:52 AM) Oh come on, you know full well that a police officer in a public area has nearly unlimited power to decide that a person looks suspicious. of being illegal? how? what's your criteria? any competent defense attorney (and judge) would get that thrown out instantly. I can't imagine there's much on the books about what an illegal alien looks like. He's got to be doing something, probably in concert with other people, in a specific setting, etc.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:41 AM) Why? How is the latter not lawful contact? As long as they're not going up to your house and drawing you outside to ask for your papers, if you're in a public place, don't the police have the right to approach you? Walking outside isn't suspicious enough. What would your argument be? He looks illegal so I reasonable suspected him to be illegal? Come on. Let's use common sense here. I've said it before, that's the problem with the law, it doesn't say what circumstances would be reasonable. But that doesn't make the law bad, it just means they'll go through a few cases to interpret what that means and what it doesn't mean, just like every other law we've ever had.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:31 AM) In other words...we're back to the real point of this law...as long as it rounds up the illegals, who cares if it requires every hispanic looking person to carry their papers. Oversimplifying the process.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:30 AM) The flaw is not about detailing what reasonable suspicion means - police understand that test (or should) and use it regularly. The flaw is that the law attempts to force police action normally reserved for situations of a higher legal hurdle (probable cause) to occur based solely on suspicion. That is where it breaks down. Wrong. Only after "lawful contact" can they then get to the "reasonable suspicion" part. It's not circumventing anything. As written they cannot just simply walk up to every brown person and ask for proof of their status.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 09:19 AM) That sounds like multiple murders on CSI: NY if you meant van, than it sounds like a Church outing in my neighborhood. If you can see them, they aren't be smuggled in. yes i meant van. And a passenger van is one thing. Look, we all know what we're talking about here. We all know what looks suspicious and what doesn't. And if you can't then you can't harass those people. That's the point. Sure a small percentage of people will get harassed for no good reason, they'll sue, and they'll most likely get compensated. That's how our system works. No different than any other law out there that cops abuse and enforce illegally. My viewpoint on this is talking with my cop buddies who work in the worst areas of Chicago. They're limited in what they can do despite what common sense would dictate. This legislation should have been worded differently, and should have included more detail as to what reasonable suspicion means. But the intent of the law is good, and I don't see much abuse happening that wouldn't happen with any other law.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) That's the issue with the law. It allows for searches based on reasonable suspicion, and any rational person would assume that reasonable suspicion basically is essentially race (i.e. the "you don't expect 14 white people in a van speaking english to be illegal immigrants). It then states that you can't use race, because otherwise the ACLU would already have won the lawsuit. So either, you violate the race provision or its unenforceable. But you're reading it like it says if you see one brown person that's enough to pull them over. That's wrong. 14 people shoved in a fan can and should be suspicious. That's your window. White/black/brown, doesn't matter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:52 AM) Because this law is unenforceable without abuse. I guess you need to point me to the part of the bill that says "when you see brown people, expect them to be illegal, and demand proof of their immigrant status."

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 07:15 AM) Thanks for avoiding the question. I think the fact is there are laws in every state and also at the federal level that have the potential for abuse, yet we trust other offices/agencies/people not to abuse them. Why make a big stink about this one without being worried about all of them? If they do illegal stuff and if they abuse their powers, the victim can have his day in court and be compensated accordingly. I think the benefit of the bill far outweighs the negatives. And I hope this type of bill (cleaned up) gets enacted everywhere.