Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 06:21 PM) Dude...it really wasn't that hard. It was "Arizona immigration law text" and the 2nd link on Google. "arizona immigration law" and "arizona immigration bill" didn't get me anywhere.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 05:05 PM) You are confusing seizure and custody. Yes, the person is seized if they do not reasonable believed that they can walk away, but that does not mean custody. If he were in custody then he would have to be given Mirandas. I dunno that a person can be "seized." They can be "falsely imprisoned" via threats/fear of not being able to leave.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 04:43 PM) My only concern is there needs to be some proof that the business knowingly hired an illegal. Imagine if a store clerk would be arrested for accepting a counterfeit bill. Same thing here. If the business has complied with all the necessary proof of the right to work and later the documents are proven to be good or great forgeries, I think it is wrong to prosecute them. That's what the law aims for - knowingly hiring illegals, and intentionally hiring illegals. And the penalties are actually a little soft - probation at first, then more sever penalties later. And if this issue doesn't show the f'd up nature of our news agencies. Try to find a copy of the actual law we're all debating here. You have to sift through hundreds of stories about it (which don't include links or even quote the actual text of the statute). What a shock that our society debates talking points over substance.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 01:54 PM) Based on the most stringent reading of the law...if the officer chose not to ask him for his papers, and another citizen witnessed that...the other citizen could sue the city for not enforcing the law stringently enough. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf What? Come on. It says nothing of the sort. Unless I've missed it, the law says that an agency/office/person of official capacity can be sued if they try to limit or restrict FEDERAL immigration law (via adopting/implementing new policy), not if a cop decides not to question one guy. GMAB. Everything I'm reading says that 99% of this bill is great. They're going after illegals, and they're going after people that harbor illegals, move illegals, and hire illegals. They're making it more difficult for employers to hire/hide illegals away (a protection for both the US and for the illegal, since I'd have to assume a lot of them are exploited for basically slave labor). They were stupid to include the problem language - But part of me wonders if the simple fact of enacting this was good enough for them. Clearly everyone is talking about it, so maybe they're just sending a message? Either way, it'll get challenged, probably lose, and they'll just have to fix up the language to include a bit more detail of when/how a police officer can request proof of citizenship.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 04:09 PM) ...an activity associated with religion? Taking peyote or sacrificing animals can be, but are not necessarily, religious exercises. Is prayer ever non-religious? The first amendment isn't just about establishing a religion; it's about the government compelling people to believe in any way, including being religious over non-religious. I'm not religious, and I do think this argument is trivial since they can pray on any other day of the week. My argument is more for the bastardizing of the Constitution (in this instance anyway). It IS all about establishing a religion. I dunno how the government is compelling people to believe in a religion by saying x date is a national prayer day. It's not a law that says "everyone must pray on this day or else!" But whatever, dumb argument I agree.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 01:57 PM) It's promoting a religious activity: prayer. It doesn't matter if it's non-denominational (we swear it's not evangelical!). Is it *picky* to b**** about something so small? Sure. How about a National Day of No Prayer? I bet that would go over well. Define religious activity. Is taking peyote a religious activity? How about sacrificing animals? And I don't think "prayer" is enough to "establish" a religion, which is all the Constitution is concerned with. Prayer isn't specific enough IMO.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 25, 2010 -> 11:17 AM) Easy ruling. The government should not be encouraging a religious exercise. Not really easy. They've been debating variances of this exact issue for decades now. Personally, I don't see a problem with it. It's not promoting a religion, therefore IMO it's constitutional. If you're going after this, you might as well go after "In God We Trust" or Christmas as a national holiday. Ignore it if you don't like it/don't agree with it. That said, their argument that the government is somehow taking something away from them is ridiculous. You don't need a stupid piece of paper proclaiming X day as national prayer day to hold rallys or to pray or to do whatever you want to do on that day.

Hopefully this guy is being watched closely. He's damn near inciting violence.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 12:27 PM) Florida was unusually strong boom and bust, as Balta pointed out. But the good news is, there are a LOT of homes to be had for cheap down there now, that are distressed or in foreclosure. Furthermore, FL's population continues to rise. So you may, in the long run, get a good rebound there. But don't expect any house anywhere to make big bucks in just a few years, as they did in the bubble of 2001-2007. Also, something else to keep in mind - one of the few bright spots in real estate has been open land, particularly recreation properties in the south and west. Baby Boomers are retiring and moving to the country, and further, the populations in those areas continue to grow faster than the rest of the country. So that's another path to consider - land is a lot cheaper to buy and cheaper to hold (property taxes) with no home on it. So you could perhaps buy a nice chunk of property for very little money now, and build on it later. As someone who is about to buy their first home (a process which was 10 times more frustrating and stressful and full of BS as I thought it would be), I'm incredibly worried about this. Seems to me that the baby boomers are either moving to new places or dying. In 5-10 years there's going to be a massive amount of empty homes out there on the market, and I dunno that there's going to be enough demand to match it. Ugh. So much uncertainty. Thank god Obama will pay off my mortgage if I can't afford it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 08:10 AM) Don't you guys realize that the point isn't "They could start their own network" or "They're being deliberately offensive"? You're fundamentally missing the point here. Even if they do wind up censored...that's the point...and not for marketing/money reasons either. This has been true since pre-Carlin. When a comic is being deliberately offensive to the point of provoking a societal response...the point is to make you, the viewer/listener, sit there and think whether or not the societal response is appropriate. Oh I totally agree and acknowledge that this was their intent, but that doesn't mean they don't have a really good point - there are certain topics which are supposedly off limits for no good reason. Shift the example from South Park not being able to show Muhammed and replace it with the uproar over the Dutch newspaper. Still a valid argument. We (western society) keep appeasing that crap, and giving into the threats, and guess what, they "win."

anyone else been noticing the pretty clear jawing going on between AJ and Peavy? Wonder if there will be a change soon. Those guys don't seem to be on the same page at all.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 04:43 PM) Derp Derp Derp! Were making fun of Islam, look how counter-cultured we arE!!! That wasn't what they were after, nor what they were doing. It was the 200/201st episode "special," which brought back the majority of characters and storylines. It was pretty good actually.

Lol, why the AP is full of old, out of touch writers: I think they were just bringing back the greatness of Casa Bonita (sopapillas!), not making a statement about the reaction to the episodes...

Kinda surprised there's not more discussion about this Obama/Goldman Sachs thing (CEO basically on speed dial) ala Bush and taking over the world for oil conspiracy. Thought this was a funny quote:

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 12:50 PM) This is so lame. Muhammad was already shown in the original Super Best Friends episode. As Trey/Matt said though, that was before 9/11. After that the country lost its balls and he suddenly became off limits.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 12:24 PM) It really is a big deal to them. To me it seems ridiculous but i'm not going to place my religion over anyone else's. The extremism and backlash that comes with "blaspheming" Muhammad is totally uncalled for, obviously, but I'm not going to chastise them for how upset it makes them. In this instance, i'd say the network should have told Parker/Stone just to not go there. Pssh. f*** that. It's called free speech. That was the beauty of the two episodes - they had Buddha doing coke lines, Jesus making gay jokes....EVERYTHING that was completely inappropriate and supposedly "offensive" (but clearly funny), yet they can't even show Muhammed, let alone make a joke about him. It's absolutely ridiculous. Comedy Central should have allowed it, and every network/publication should have replayed it over and over again. Extremism 1,678,435 Freedom 0 I think we should also stop this entire war on terror too. Let them kill us. After all, we need to respect their beliefs. While we're at it, we should also stop allowing our women to see the light of day, and force them to cover their entire bodies. That's the reason bad s*** happens.

Pretty meh overall, but some nice moments - jack/locke's talk could have been more, but jack/sawyers talk on the boat was pretty cool. Who didn't see Widmore's reaction at the end coming from a mile away? Sayid/Desmond's talk was interesting, perhaps Sayid isn't the zombie they made him out to be. The sideways story....eh. I hated it at first, the Desmond episode sorta got me interested, but now it's all going to be wrapped up in a nice little bow in the next 4 hours. I wish they would have given a big hint earlier in the season and then slowly let this stuff out. Instead it was random sideways stories for 6 episodes and then a big rush of "answers" to what it all means.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Apr 20, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) I rewatched last week's episode last night and I have a question about the well that I was hoping someone could answer me.. We are to assume it is the same well that Locke was going down when the flash occurred and he fell, suffered a compound fracture and turned the wheel as instructed by Christian. Wasn't this the same place where the Swan was built and Juliet set off the bomb. If I am correct, the well was replaced by the building of the Swan and thus in the current on island scenario the Swan was never built and Dharma never existed...... I don't think so, because NotLocke says something like "they built these wells all over the island." Also at the time they're in, there should be some sort of greenhouse thing built around it.

Damn republicans, always inciting violence and hate.

That's my bad. I didn't even intend to mean it that way.

lol, pretty funny email forward I just got:

And I just got back from the tea party rally at Daley Plaza. Have to say that I feel bad for people that rely on the media to tell them what we/they stand for (accepting myself as a member of the MAJOR components of the movement now, since I basically agreed with 95% of what I saw/heard). All I heard was an hour of people speaking about hwo they're pissed off about taxes and the role of government in our lives. In fact, the only negative stuff I heard was the pro-gay/pro-abortion/anti-war group on the southeast corner screaming at people, calling them "bigots" and "racists." Oh and to those that thought it odd that the tea party has no leader, I also heard numerous speakers describe it as a “movement” and specifically denied the idea that it was a party. It’s just people pissed about what’s going on in Washington. Kinda similar to past protests that were “liberal” and “progressive” that somehow were “positive” for the country…

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 15, 2010 -> 12:39 PM) I bet it's higher than 10%, there's a good portion of the conservative base that lives in the Bible Belt. Much below a majority, however. But I still think a large portion of those people aren't the type to do anything about it. Me personally, I don't think homosexuality is "natural." I don't think it's "wrong" either. I also don't think it's my place to judge what people do. I think gays should accept "civil unions" that provide the same benefits and be done with that battle. And adoption is the only real sticking point with me, but it's better to have a kid in a home than not at all.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 15, 2010 -> 12:09 PM) Yeah. I'm not really sure. What do you think? Honestly, I think less than 10%. The number goes up if you're talking about people who don't think it's "right" or isn't "natural." But people that actually care, that want to deny people rights, that want to promote harm? Incredibly small.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 14, 2010 -> 05:58 PM) I'm not saying that him or anyone else on this board does. I just think that a majority of conservatives tend to have a negative view of homosexuality. So you've gone from "conservatives" to "some conservatives" to a "majority of conservatives" huh?