Texsox

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 11:23 AM) not SOXTALK...he's talking about lyrics sites, Tex

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 11:12 AM) Can anybody tell me why websites with lyrics are probably the most corrupt sites on the internet? They seem to be riddled with ads and spyware. cheap easy content that people will search for. Clueless teenagers that will click on anything.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) That becomes a part of the matching process. Obviously a person coming from Africa needs a more permanent solution than someone from Mexico who could just go home. If there are that many jobs out there that need filling, there are plenty of solutions. It's a great idea and I really don't want to pick it apart. The hurdles are big, but the worldwide benefit is even bigger. Education comes into play in finding more permanent jobs.

And there are enough incentives for illegals to go around. Better jobs and wages for the illegals then available to that individual in Mexico. Better employees, more employees, and sometimes better profits for the employer. Lower prices for the consumer. Arguably lower taxes when workers are "off the books"

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 10:24 AM) I wouldn't stop anyone from using their language if they ran into someone who also spoke it. I just don't want to pay for the expectations that someone SHOULD speak it. If an employee and a customer at the DMV both speak Spanish, good for them. If it helps them get their transaction finished, its fine with me. I just don't think everyone should have to pay for it. I could support that. If the normal employment pool mirrors the population, that should occur naturally.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) That's the point of a program like this. You would be able to take people out of their situtions and match them with employment in the US before they ever get here. Think about it, an cotton grower in Texas needs 50 people to tend to his crop. He calls INS, or whoever runs the program, and tells them exactly what he needs. INS looks into the computers and sees that they have refugees in Darfur who used to be sustence farmers before the genocides started happening. INS handles processing the 50 new people, to whatever extend they need to be prepared (IDs, work visas, citizenship, however far you need to go), and then brings them into the country. The farmer in Texas knows he is getting people who want to be here, and people who will be here legally. The workers get to leave a refugee camp, or worse, and get a new life in the US. The US government gets to be hero's to the world. Its a win-win situation. I love the idea. Maybe not the government becoming an employment agency, but I see another spin off I will come back to. One flaw. Length of employment. Currently the Mexican worker goes back to Mexico after the 3 months of work are completed. How would you handle the person fleeing Darfur? Spin off I really like. INS looks at the database and sees there are 13 unemployed workers in Texas who match qualifications and would be available three days a week during that time. That would give them two days to continue searching for permanent, full time, positions. I'm voting SS for President until he runs up those trillion dollar debts

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 10:32 AM) Populations never grow exponentiall forever. They're limited by the very things you are worried about - food supply and water. Nature is very tough in enforcing that.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) I understand why you and many people put the economy as a top priority but when it all comes down to being able to actually "live" comfortably in the future I can't stress how much more important the environment is to me. I'm always thinking worst case scenario so my vision of the future is quite bleak. I'm picturing an arid wasteland with scarce crops...another dust bowl, if you will. Water and air quality much worse than today's. Couple that with overpopulation and what kind of a world could that be? The economy at that point would be irrelevant. Just my 2 cents. Sqwert, Perhaps my age gives me a perspective that is much more optimistic. Take a look at standards in the 60s when rivers caught on fire and much of the drinking water was in peril, and today and you will see how well we have done. I don't see us returning to even 1960's levels. Just my .02 and I would encourage everyone to stay vigilant and be concerned.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) So as the Hsu scandal grows by the day, instead of giving back just the $23,000 given directly by Hsu, Hillary thinks it is a good idea to give back the near $1 million that was bundled by this guy. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070911/D8RIVR8G0.html Simple formula* Number of Votes gained without HSU's $850,000 is > or = to the Number of Votes gained with Hsu's $850,000 *From my newly created Center For Bi-Partisan Cynicism

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 09:57 AM) I do agree that the government should have an official language to conduct business in. I really think that the extra costs associated with all of the people necesary to add just a single language's worth of materials shouldn't have to be borne by the rest of the country. You don't have to speak English, but in order to conduct business with the government you should be able to. You are free to not learn English, but as in anything there are consequences for your actions. Excellent post. Here is a practical example and perhaps something the English Only will tolerate. Down here most of the population is bi-lingual. Especially the people who grew up here. If the customer (Post Office, City Hall, Congressman's Office, DMV) is standing there and more comfortable in Spanish or French, and the taxpayer supported employee speaks Spanish or French, why prohibit them from speaking in that language?

I don't think a poll is necessary for this. Too tough to pick three and too many issues.

Environment Immigration Federal Budget Undecided, still sorting out candidates with an open mind. Issue by issue I disagree with both parties. Briefly Environment. Dems will preserve it, but not let me use. GOP will let me use it, but not preserve it. Immigration. No one is tying immigration to jobs. No one is talking about our food supply and national security. Federal Budget. I use to respect both parties. GOP fought to contain costs and not spend more then was received. The Dems would be tax *and* spend. Now we have the worst of both words. Both parties want to spend spend spend and believe we have to borrow billions of dollars to make our economy work. You requested three, this isn't a hierarchy and there are other issues I am also concerned about and would use to evaluate a candidate. Iraq, Homeland Security, Personal freedoms and rights, etc.

Not worth the debate. I think government should serve the citizens, not vice versa. If we have the resources to serve the citizens, I think we should.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 09:47 AM) Both. Most of the people in the field make me sick to my stomach. I agree, (with the edit).

^^^^^ ^^^^^ The only downside is we have benefited by having borders with strong allies. But I agree 100% with your direction. As noted spending $ to immigrate a field laborer probably is not cost effective, but nonetheless a worthy project. Kind of like Trade not Aid. But using the Darfur example, do you think they would not steal a SS number to be here?

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 09:38 AM) He's certainly no champion of conservative values that's for sure. If he wins the nomination then I'll hold my nose and vote for him over ANY Democrat but I don't think he will win.......primarily because I don't think he can mobilize the religious right with his record. Is that based on looking at the current Democrat field, or just an overall dislike of Dems? I think Dems hurt themselves as being much more willing to vote for Reps than Reps for Dems. Not certain why that is.

"Stand on their own" is a really tough standard. Defining that is next to impossible. It could be debated that in some neighborhoods in any major city, the police are not standing on their own. I don't want to just cut and run, but I believe we are defining standing on their own as when the government of "our choosing" is firmly in control. We really do not want a freely elected government, we want our guys in charge. And I would not necessarily disagree after the loses we suffered. So when we say "stand on their own" we should all understand that means "our people". Making that even tougher.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 09:24 AM) Im not a moralist by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think having a bad time with marriage(s) ( lots of people do ) and lewd public conduct are even on the same planet. fixed, and I believe a rather important distinction. Three wives and a mistress. I am putting them on the same "Family Values" planet.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 09:16 AM) Trolling for sex in a mens room? That doesn't sound like behavior consistent with a party that champions family values does it? No. So does Rudy G.'s marrriage record make him not a real Republican?

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 03:16 AM) A Lee/Rock fight would be far more entertaining than anything either of those clowns do with their 'music'. Let's bring back celebrity boxing!

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 02:54 AM) Without having done a lot of looking over of the candidates, I like Fred Thompson the most of the bunch. The rest of the field are too unknown or have too much baggage. I may change my tune later but as of now, Thompson is my guy. You know he really wasn't a prosecutor in New York

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 08:50 AM) Please note that I said it SHOULD be, not that it was. Move along. So tell me, how does a candidate speaking Spanish, or a tourist being able to get a Visa in their native tongue, harm you?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 08:54 AM) Tex, I weeded bean fields 2 summers while in high school. I know it is tough work. And itchy, at least with the damn beans. That doesn't make it ok that people are breaking the law while others just pretend it doesn't happen. And the replies concerning 'new' people are for ILLEGAL new people. Farm industry need workers? Fine. Fix the damn guest worker program. I have said that here, and so have many others. But stop coming here ILLEGALLY. I agree. But deporting the ones already here and closing businesses, like farmers, may cause bigger problems then they solve. And the rhetoric that comes out of some of the anti-immigrant mouths says just that.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 02:58 AM) I have no sympathy at all for farmers who rely on illegal immigrant labor. If they put being a legitimate business and paying a decent wage over their own profits then they would have no need for illegal immigrant labor. $20 per hour isn't decent? I'm more concerned about American's being able to feed ourselves and not doubling our produce bills. Talk about inflation. People were concerned when gas went to three dollars, at least we could conserve, drive less, etc. And perhaps this would be a good thing when we have to cut down on food. I know farmers, it is probably about the worse business to own. How much new ladn do you see being plowed into farm fields versus how many homes are being built on farmland? We are already importing way too much of our food. Alpha, Read some of the replies concerning millions of *new* people crossing the borders. Read some of the replies talking about putting Americans to work. Here is a perfect opportunity. Come on down and work a month or two and make some great money. Just pointing out that some people think this is way to simplistic. Food and shelter is pretty damn important to most Americans. Who do you know is willing to spend 10-12 hours a day, in the fields, picking fruits and vegetables? And this is after the farming industry was forced to offer such extravaganzas like bathrooms and hand washing in the fields.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 03:32 AM) This clown just needs to quit right this second so a real Republican can have the proper time to campaign for and win the seat. What a disgrace. Why do you say he isn't a "real Republican"?