Texsox

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 08:48 AM) The times I've flown Southwest I've always had an assigned seat. they are talking about specific seats like row 12 seat A. Something they have never done.

QUOTE(samclemens @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:17 AM) you are right. we should give more aid to mexico to improve a foreign country's economy. since mexico is part of the united states, its our responsibility. We give them aid to hire more law enforcement, to help clean up their environment (some of which was US manufacturers mess), to improve health care, etc. Keeping a stable government on our border is money well spent. It certainly is as valid as sending money to everyone in the middle east and half of the former Soviet block countries. BTW, were you away that much of the agriculture in Texas is dependent on the Rio Grande watershed. That watershed is sprerad out across both countries. When Mexico makes improvements, with US aid, to their reservoir system, it increases the amount of water the US has for irrigating crops. Programs like that are excellent ways to offer US aid.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:10 AM) The Dems certainly would have had to been careful. I totally agree with you there. Good points. I was just thinking, from a political capital and opportunity point of view, what President has pissed away, or had taken away, more political capital than Bush? Control of everything up to the Supreme Court and a post 9/11 approval rating that was through the roof. Amazing to think about. That may be the central theme when historians view his career. I think he, perhaps much like Jimmy Carter, may have had too much heart for the job. I may question his mind and intelligence, but Bush has a good heart. I really believe it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:18 AM) They can be let in, a controlled number, with the caveat they have to have employment within X number of days. Hell ... As I type this, I see all kinds of logistical problems with it. I don't know how to address this. Exactly and the control has to be linked to jobs. I wouldn't let them in until there is a job or someone willing to support them. There is no other criteria as important to both parties (immigrant and US) Perhaps let the employers apply for a guest worker permit and then they fill it. There has to be some way to link jobs to immigration. Anything can happen once they are here, companies may close, etc. and we would have to account for that. But from both sides this makes sense. From the people I know who have immigrated, legally and illegally, the desire to build a better life for their kids and sometimes themselves is the #1 reason for crossing the river. That better life isn't from being on public aid, it comes from working and having your children be educated. From the taxpayer side, we would rather send aid to Mexico than deal with Spanish speaking Mexicans on our shores who are accepting aid. So linking jobs to immigration works.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:05 AM) I'll say this much, though. This is the main reason I've been stumping for secure borders. That would curtail the need for Nat'l ID cards and databases. Once the border is effectively under control, then the weeding out process could take place through the natural course of events. In other words, pull someone over for speeding and if he's illegal alien, arrest and turn over to the proper department. No need for mass roundups. What? You mean Natalie Holloway isn't an important issue? Explain what you mean by linking jobs to immigration. Currently one proposal calls for 330,000 immigrants per year and another calls for less. Neither proposal links these immigrants actually having means of suppporting themsleves. Some link to where immigrants have to have jobs seems like a no brainer to me. I don't have an exact method in mind, but perhaps either a direct; Juan Carlos Espinosa's application as a guest worker is sponsored by Hormel who needs him in their chicken processing plant or a floating number based on unemployment numbers. But to say in 2008 we will allow X number of immigrants is just stupid.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) Oh, I agree there would have had to have been an investigation of it. But there are calm, sensible investigations and there is treestump rhetoric. I'm sorry, but Bush would not have been given one iota of the benefit of the doubt. Which is why I say the passenger communications would have been such an out, and easily have supplied Bush with a reason to never acknowledge the order had been given. Actually, remember the bull horn and 90% approval ratings? I believe, at that time, he would have been given the benefit of a lot of doubt. Today? Toast him. Not fair, but reality. I agree a calm, sensible investigation is always a better approach, but politicians won't allow for that.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) I don't have all the answers, my friend. I just don't like the way things are headed. I don't like the way things are and am glad we are having a national debate about it. One thing I have total faith in is America's ability to solve big problems. We have a system that allows for all voices to be heard, a single voice can change the world. So I am encouraged by the way things are headed. It is the things we aren't talking about that worry me more. Now if I could just hear more people linking jobs to immigration, I'd be even happier.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:51 AM) Now they are talking about a national database the employers would be required to check before hiring someone. In fact, I think Georgia is trying to implement this right now. So, in effect, that gives the gov't the ability to approve or disapprove of hirings. This is an offshoot of the illegal immigration problem, but easily expandable to include everyone. Currently employers are required to look at various forms of identification to determine if an applicant can legally work in the US. Many people are proposing destroying any businesses that are caught with illegals. Huge fines, prison, etc. If we are going to make the penalties so severe that someone's life work would be destroyed if they hire someone who is found to be llegal, shouldn't there be a full proof way that employers would be protected? How else could we do it without changing our present ID systems?

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) As logical as that sounds, the press still would have been all over him. The Dems would be screaming for an investigation. They are always sniffing for blood with Bush. This would have been an extraordinary event in our history. The only prudent thing would be for it to be investigated. The President would have ordered innocent US citizens killed. No way that should be allowed to pass with a shrug of the shoulders. No matter who the President is. The alternative is just trusting the President and we have never in our history allowed that to pass. The nagging question would be, could the people on the plane have overpowered the terrorists and taken control of the plane, and how much time should have been allowed to see if that was going to happen? The plane was heading to heavily populated areas, the window was closing quickly. I really don't think they shot the plane down and no one saw it. So this is just a theoretical question.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) But that's how they work. A little here (Nat'l cards), a little there (chip in the cards), then ... chip implanted under the skin. The chip under the skin would be convienent. I understand the concerns, and share many of them, but like I said, combining all the cards in my wallet and my passport seems ok to me. Where we go from there, should be debated. I do think we are heading towards a system where proving citizenship will be important, and I can't think of a more convienent way than a national ID card. Carrying a passport sucks, I had to carry a green card for working in Mexcio, about the same size as a passport, for a few years and it is a pain.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:34 AM) When they put RFID chips in them, they are basically tracking devices. We'd have to draw the line before that.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:28 AM) I wouldn't have disagreed either. But, he would have been put through the wringer by the media and opposition party. Probable headline: Bush orders plane shot down to save himself! And if any President ever had to order something like that, I would hope there was a huge debate. No way I would want any President being able to kill civilians without close examination.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) I know this much. The Democratic Party is way to liberal for me. I'm not going to buy into any temporary centrist movement on their part, either. When it comes down to it, I don't trust the Bushies. Conservative agendas are one thing, but driving us toward fascism is something else. And your National ID card is one step in that process, by the way. I don't see the difference between a national ID card and me carrying a Texas driver's license and a passport. In fact, give me a universal card that would work as my driver's license, library card (already there) Blockbuster discount card, gym membership card, credit card, debit card, selected medical history, Sam's Club card, etc. We are already carrying all that stuff, let's combine it into one. I try to avoid the descriptive labels for either party. I disagree with the GOP on balancing the budget, activist judges, and the media. I think they are trying to destroy a couple pillars of our freedoms. I also disagree with Dems on a number of issues, so depending on the people involved, I make choices. Statewide in Texas, I voted for more Republicans than Dems, because on balance, I agreed with more of their plans than their opponents.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 08:37 AM) Sit down, Texsox. Because this is filibuster and I'm agreeing with you. The "Let's Roll!" guys gave Bush the out he needed if, in fact, that plane was shot down. I would not have disagreed with that decision, and I would have a great deal of sympathy for Bush for being placed in that position. I couldn't imagine a worse position. Although, once it was determined that terrorists were flying the plane, it would be easy to make the conclusion they were already going to die, so minimize the casualties. But I would never have a good night's sleep again. And it's ok to agree. I agreed with SS on illegals sending money outside the country.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 08:53 AM) I think I'm going to say the hell with both parties and go Libertarian. I think there is a window of opportunity, and guys like McCain and Lieberman could lead the way. As the parties polarize themselves, they are leaving a lot of Americans in the middle.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2006 -> 08:43 AM) You're right, what was I thinking. We should just annex Mexico and get it over with, right? I mean they obviously need our tax money more than we do, not to mention we need busboys and fruitpickers as you have pointed out, and no American should have to do that when we have Mexicans who will... Plus think of all the the crimes that won't have to be committed and all of the border patrol people we can just send over to Iraq because we won't need them here anymore! Plus we can just break them up into a bunch of states, throwin DC and Puerto Rico while we are at it, and get up to 60-70 states or so. Damn think how many jobs we could create for the flag makers alone! ANNEX MEXICO!!! In case you didn't read my post, I agreed with you. I am all for making being illegal difficult and sending money back would be a great way to stop that. It's your proposal, did you have a better way to prove citizenship before buying money orders? Ilegals aren't going into banks and wiring money, they are going to the local conviencence store and buying an international money order or traveler's checks. It's cheaper, easier for the receipient who probably doesn't have a bank account, and flies under the radar. But you are the money guy and I know you already knew that. I also think a national ID card would be a good thing, and perhaps showing it to buy money orders or even food would be another great way to control this problem. There is a price to pay, and that will be requiring everyone who purchases these items to prove who they are. This may also help the wars on terror and drugs. I have never been for allowing anyone and everyone in. I've been for allowing anyone in who has a job waiting. Which is why I am against this current bill that allows for X number, regardless of US employment needs. So if you want to slow the increase of immigrants slow the growth of those jobs or have more of the existing base perform those jobs. But it has to be linked to jobs. Anything else is a mistake, including birthright to children of non-citizens. And Mexico is already divided into states. If we annex them, I believe we should continue to keep those divisions. There are a couple goofy shaped ones near the border that could be reworked.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 08:42 AM) Rex does has a valid point. You have to take into consideration, though, that the conservative base was already unhappy with various aspects of Bush's presidency, for example the excessive spending/big gov't that has occured. That is usually the mantra of the Democrats. I would be more upset that Bush and the rest of the party has squanderd*, so far, the total control that the American voters gave them. It will be interesting to see if that opportunity lasts past November. So far, conservatives have tried to link every major crisis in our country, either the cause or the cure, to 12 million unskilled laborors. Terrorism, the economy, crime, drugs, etc. Sounds like a made in heaven opportunity for a politician. With one bill everything is solved. We have reduced politics to cheering for our team. Cheer everything our guys do and jeer everything the other team does. *Did I just Gage a word

He did really well. I love that look on his face. Priceless.

There would have been countless debates, lawsuits, and an impeachment trial to determine if the President can use the military to kill citizens. And the pilots would ultimately be revealed. Nope, I see it remaining classified and top secret for a long time, IF it even happened.

link more at link

linked

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 16, 2006 -> 12:40 PM) 70's - Dick Allen, Bill Melton 80's - Carlton Fisk, Harold Baines 90's - Robin Ventura, Frank Thomas 00's - Mark Buehrle, Paul Konerko I would take out Bill Melton and add Wilbur Wood. Other than that, perfect list. I'm guessing, by the end of this decade, I would give strong consideration to how AJ would fit in.

Latest on the legislative front. Good luck Mr. President.

A couple years ago, Detroit elevated their AAA to the majors and they sucked. Some of their historical stats are not as accurate a gauge. People where trying to explain away the 2005 Sox team in almost the same way. One way to judge a good team is how they take care of lesser teams. You have to take care of businesses when you are playing the Royals. It seems like all the top teams tread water against each other and crush the crappy teams. I suspect Detriot will hang around and fade the last couple weeks like Cleveland last year.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 02:29 AM) The numbers went south because the conservative base got tired of the illegal immigration issue being ignored. I applaud how conservatives will find one issue and pull their support from the President until it gets addressed. Sounds like Rex is right. Conservatives were upset about gay marriage, the President poll numbers suffer. He works on that, poll number rebounds. Now conservatives go after illegals. Illegals the new gays. Good call Rex.