Texsox

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 18, 2006 -> 03:15 AM) Still, you have to admit that there is certain hipocrasy to Fox's stance our immigration policies as opposed to his own policies. These are two very different countries, with two very different concerns. We happen to need these workers, they have millions of poor people without jobs. One country has excess workers and no jobs, the other has jobs and not enough workers. It would seem obvious that both countries would have different laws regarding immigration. And there are hypocrasies in laws everywhere. Mexico will trade with Cuba, but will not allow many Cubans to imigrate. The US will not trade with Cuba, but any Cuba who touches the beach, is allowed to stay. We accept everyone from a country we consider an enemy, but want to restrict those from a partner and ally. Does that make sense? Kap, you are correct, they are illegal. The issue is, how badly do we want to punish ourselves in the process of punishing them? Shall we invest billions in rounding them all up and deporting them? After all that is the current law. Let's enforce the law. Who cares what that does to out agriculture industries, we can always buy more food from overseas. Who cares how many businesses go under, after all these people are here illegally and that's the law. Of course, we both know that will not happen. So we start with the premise we will ignore the current law and figure out what to do with all these law breakers. Why should we punish ourselves and weaken our countries security by destroying our agriculture industry? So Kap you can't have it both ways, you must be in favor of rounding them up at any cost and deporting them because " ILLEGAL is ILLEGAL. "

Usually after seeing a play a couple times and in slow motion, it loses its Wow! factor and actually starts looking almost ordinary. I originally thought the play wasn't that spectacular, now, after seeing it for about the 10 time, Wow.

Kenyans Sweep Boston

Linkage More at link

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 17, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) I think you're right Soxy. I would love to do it too. Couple lefties starting a commune count me in. This area is plaqued by decades of unrestricted pesticide and fertilzer usage which has made the Rio Grande and Arroyo Colorado two of the most polluted rivers in America.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Apr 17, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) I looking at it overall not just the worker permit issue, I am not down on workers they are just trying to make a living just stating overall immigration differences between the 2 countries and how V.Fox wants it ALL 1 way. I understan\ that there are differences in the laws and I don't see how that should effect our laws. If Mexico changed their laws and said, we'll let everyone in, now you *have* to, we'd immediately reject that argument.

There is only one really good reason in my book to implement this policy. If it brings in more paying fans. If research has shown that more people will show up to watch if Crede had shorter hair, then go for it. But I back management's right to have an appearance policy. I prefer a player's peer pressure version, kind of like Hawk players would not wear face shields, only panty shields.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Apr 17, 2006 -> 05:08 PM) What part of Illegal alien am I missing, try going all around Mexico and stay after 60 days you will be deported, try as an illegal in Mexico to hold a rally you can't as stated in there constitution and even If you gain citizenship you can be deported anytime no questions asked as stated in there constitution, on Mexico southern border they use the military so illegals do not get in. Mexico wants US to give all things to illegals but in Mexico they want it the other way. Yes, isn't it wonderful to live in a developed, world superpower, instead of a 3rd world country? Are you suggesting that Mexico's plan is somehow better than ours? I believe comparing ourselves to a third world country is silly. We beat Mexico in so many areas. Our laws are our laws, their laws are their laws. Plus, I have worked in Mexico and can say from first hand experience, we do not want to be Mexico, let's set out goals higher. If we start to base out laws on the laws of other coutries would that mean we would have to accept every immigrant from some country because they agreed to accept an unlimited amount of Americans? Couple things you are missing. Mexico will issue FM3s for just about anyone to come work in their country, This annual pass costs about $100, is very easy to apply for, you don't even have to speak Spanish. You can then live anywhere in the country. It is renewable for an unlimited number of times. If you desire a shorter work period, they have an FMN which is available at the border and costs about $20. That is a 30 day work visa with the same ability to move around anywhere in the country.

I've been driving around a bit today and had the opportunity to think about this a little bit. It seems to me that this breaks down into a couple areas. Economic, immigration, politics, and ethics to name a few. I'm not schooled in economics, there are far better minds regarding this around here, but would like to see which conclusions I have here would be considered wrong. Our society needs people to scrape our dished, mow our lawns, wash our cars, pick our fruit, and dig ditches and other forms of manual labor. These jobs are not held in high esteem, are not particularly well paid, and do not provide much of a lifestyle. Definately not the American dream that we have for our children when we send them off to school and tell them not to forget the golden rule. Our education system needs to prepare our children to earn a living. Further, because it is taxpayer financed, the greater good of society should be furthered. As our society has moved from a manufacturing and agriculture based economy to higher tech, we have increased our wealth in a world wide economy, decreased the desire for manual labor jobs, while increasing demand for these jobs. After all a computer programmer earning a six figure income doesn't want to come home and mow his lawn. If our education system was producing an end product (Graduates) who were suited for scrapping dishes and picking fruit, we would believe the system failed, the teachers were inadequate, and we would demand improvements. Anyone who has spent 12 years in our education system must certainly be capable of something else besides toiling in a farm field. So we have advanced past manual labor for our citizens, we demand more for our children, yet these jobs need to be filled. So for the past several decades, perhaps all of the past century, we have silently watched as individuals without documentation, sneak into this country via the backs of semi trailers, in boxcars, and walking hundreds of miles, dodging checkpoints, and risking death. Now, we want to change the way these jobs are filled. Some would claim that we have able bodied Americans that can do these jobs. That despite 12 years of education, toiling in fields and restaurants is all they can do. Hopefully there backs will outlast their years. It seems plain to me that the reforms that Reagan started did not keep pace with the reality of our society, our education system, and the demands of our businesses. The system did not allow for the legal immigration of much needed workers. So now we have reached a point when this is on the front burner and we need to fundementaly change our immigration laws. We could say to the 12,000,000, thank you and goodbye. You broke our laws, and need to go home. We could further destroy those businesses that employed those workers. I believe we are punishing ourselves as much as we are punishing the law breakers. In the wake of that policy would be failed agriculture, which is not in our nation's security. We could once again offer amnesty, like Reagan, and not change any of our current programs, and wait 30 years and again have millions and millions of undocumented workers again. Not a good answer. Or we could work to bring those existing workers into the system. Punish those that paid their workers cash, that paid them less than minimum wage, that didn't make payroll tax payments. Keep out those that cheated, robbed, and didn't act like guests. We could develop a program that allows workers to legally immigrant and earn their citizenship. In short to look at what benefits out security, that doesn't destroy our agriculture programs, that yes, and I see no way around it, does make legal, those that broke our laws by coming here to pick onions, to butcher chickens, to mow lawns.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 17, 2006 -> 08:11 AM) I have no tolerance for drunk drivers - its an incredibly selfish and idiotic act. But that phrase there in bold bothers the heck out of me. Its too derivative. DUI is a derivative law anyway, assuming that harm could be done. This is now a derivative of a derivative. Its not acceptable to me. You want to stop DUIs, patrol the parking lots and the streets instead of the bars. Stop the drivers as they get into the cars, and send them back into the bar to call a cab. And change the laws to allow people to be falling down drunk in bars. If there is a law that should not be enforced, get rid of it, don't tell police not to enforce it.

What the years between Reagan's amnesty program and today have proven is our current system does not work. We had a huge demand for entry level, manual laborers, and similar jobs and our High Schools and Colleges could not supply workers to fill this demand and companies went looking outside the country. Perhaps we need to look at our education system and figure out what changes we need to make to start turning out students who can do this work. With less than 5% unemployment, this is one way to reach full employment.

Supply and demand. There is a demand for these jobs and the supply has to come from somewhere. There are 12,000,000 people holding down jobs in this country. If they all disappeared and were suddenly replaced by legal workers, what would change? Well we would have rising wages, because of a short supply of workers. These workers, being legal, would demand the government benefits that the current workers are afraid to apply for. The same taxes would be sent to Washington, yet more money would have to be returned. The problem was we have a demand that has not be filed by legal workers. The solution being proposed is eliminate the workers. Who are these undocumented workers taking the jobs from? It's funny that when we talk about cutting the taxes of the business owners, or raising minimum wage, people say that it will cause businesses to close, it would kill any incentive for business owners to expand, there would be less jobs. Now all of a sudden these same businesses can handle higher wages. There are undocumented workers all around our country. We have senior citizens working off the books for cash so their pensions and social security are not cut. I agree, if the worker provided no documentation, and the employer isn't paying taxes for the work, throw the book at them, it doesn't matter if the worker is a citizen or not. But lets not cripple our agriculture industry in the process of fixing an economic supply and demand problem. All this hand wringing about our dependence on foreign oil is silly when you stop and consider we currently cannot feed ourselves with our current food production. Eliminating more farms and ranches will only serve to make that worse. The backbone of our economy are the workers at all levels. Reagan had the right idea and now Bush is also on the right track. Let's do what is right for the US instead of seeking retribution for people willing to do the dirty work in our society for low wages and even lower lifestyles. Put in place a guest worker program. Allow those individuals who have lived clean and quiet lives to remain here, deport and fine those that have not been good "guests". Make all businesses accountable when they fail to document their workers, no matter the country of origin. Paying grandpa cash is as wrong as paying an immigrant. And who is being punished for these workers? All the stats I see about the benefits they receive are the same benefits any worker doing that job would receive. If we are punishing anyone, it is the workers who toil at these jobs in an underground industry and never given the opportinuty for the basic human dignity a worker deserves. We need you to pick our onions, scrape our plates, dig our ditches, but don't come around to the front door. Yes Mike, the deficit will rise when workers are free to apply for the programs they are afforded by our government. Replacing undocumented workers, with documented workers will result in an increase to those entitlement programs. By ignoring the problem, those programs are not used as much. I'm not certain what point you are making. That would seem in favor of not doing anything. But now that the genie is out of the bottle, I don't think we can put it back in. No matter who is working these jobs legally, the benefits are the same. Illegals actually collect less benefits. How would we have less taxes paid if these workers were legal? Ending the incentive to being here illegally by ending the jobs. I like that idea. We need to begin training, or at least encouraging more Americans to work in farm fields, as busboys, lawn maintenace people, etc. How do you suggest we do that?

BTW, the Pizza Huts here do sell beer. I guess it's the only way to eat their pizza Update:

I always that Newt was a very intelligent man. I wouldn't find it depressing it is him, I would find it depressing if he is ignored. When either party does something smart, we all benefit.

The Bigger concerns are not can we establish a closer or can Pods hit and run, but how much better did Cleveland and Detroit get. No running and building a lead this season. The Central will be tough and we're going to have to start winning on the coasts.

He also should move closer to the cell, sit when pulling on his underwear, install grab rails and handicap access in his shower, where does it end?

Awesome. Denali is on my life list.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Apr 16, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) But not everyone does the FastPay, advances, etc. That is definitely a bad decision financially. I do chose to file electronically and use direct deposit, but that only cost me roughly 1.5%. On a $1200 refund as you pointed out, the difference between not getting interest and in filing electronically is likely $50 or less. I have no problem giving up $50 for a lump sum that I can use for something specific, be it vacation, home improvement or whatever. If everyone was perfectly disciplined with their money.... That will never happen so there is no reason to go any farther. Of course, this is much better than just blowing the $1,200 in lattes and misc. throughout the year. But I think we both agree paying the government to save money for you is not as good as being paid to save the money. Having $1300 instead of $1200 for the same vacation, home improvement, etc. would be better. Of course when I was 27, I wouldn't of had the $1200 and would have just charged it. So like I said, I wish I woulda, coulda, shoulda done it when I was younger, but I didn't. Earning interest on your interest is a powerful tool in increasing your financial well being.

QUOTE(Felix @ Apr 16, 2006 -> 08:26 AM) Firefox Phish or the Grateful Dead? Every silver lining has a touch of grey ~ Grateful Dead paint or paper

It highlights perhaps the single most important aspect of our government. No one group or party can totally f*** up without someone else being empowered to fix the f*** up. So when one party threatens a filibuster, go for it. When another has the ability to appoint anyone they want to the Supremes, go for it. Think there should be a Constitutional amendment?, start writing. Our system has stood up to corruption, incompetence, stupidity, bigotry, institutionalize racism, war mongering, and all sorts of asshattery.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 16, 2006 -> 03:37 AM) They've got the right to TRY and 'codify' any type of legislation to choose to. The constitionality of any successfully passed legislation will be address by the USSC. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yes they do. And it highlights one of the genious portions of our Constitution. It would be a better argument to state why it would be bad public policy to do so.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Apr 15, 2006 -> 11:40 PM) I gotta disagree with you on this one Texsox. While your thinking is correct financially, it doesn't fly in most cases when applying it to the real world for three reasons. 1. It is much, much less likely that someone will save that extra few bucks a paycheck they will get back by adjusting their withholding to accomodate the above approach. A few extra bucks each week (or however one gets paid) is likely to be spent on "stuff", often times stuff that isn't even a necessity. 2. How does one know exactly how much to adjust their withholding in an attempt to reach a zero overpayment/zero underpayment scenario? Things change for many people within a year. I believe that most people would prefer NOT to have to write a check of any size come each May. 3. The difference between a zero interest loan and the interest earned on a basic savings account is next to nothing for most people. Very few people make the kind of money that it would make a difference, and those that do aren't worried about a refund in the context most of us would. The amount of interest earned in current market conditions nowhere near offsets the benefit of gaining a fairly sizable sum after taxes are filed. I'll take my refund every year and utilize that money in a positive way, rather than blowing a few extra bucks a week. I agree it doesn't work for some people. If we are talking a few dollars a paycheck, then we are only talking about a couple hundred dollar return. You are correct, that's pretty close already and about as close as you can get. I'm talking about the $1200 + refunds. Those individuals should consider an autodraft into their mutual funds of that $100 to $200 a month. As far as the situations change during the year, I can think of some things that would decrease their tax liability, like the birth of a child, buying a home, unemployment, etc. But that is something to be concerned about. Many people could review their last couple years tand have a pretty good estimate of what they should pay. If you been claiming 2 dependents and getting a $1500 refund the past two years, see what claiming 3 would do for your net pay. Then from what I've seen with the Fast Pay, advances and etc. It's worse than just taking an advance on a credit card. After overpaying all year, now they want the money fast, and pay extra for electronic filing and a cash advance. Of all the regrets I have in life, not understanding it's better to be earning interest than paying interest until I was in my thirties, is one of the biggest. Maximizing your earnings, even starting with small amounts, is a discipline I wish I learned much earlier. Finally, yes you may only be earning 2 or 3%, but if you are also paying 5 or 6% to get a rapid refund, then the gain is much bigger, between 7 and 10%.

Bobby Knight Firefox or IE

QUOTE(THEWOOD @ Apr 13, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) I really really really dont want to send my check in to them. It's voluntary. If you don't, they have a great system where they will just come and get it. If you mess with them enough, they will give up, stop requiring you to pay taxes at all, and will even provide free room and board for 1-5 years, depending on how much you evade.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Apr 15, 2006 -> 09:41 PM) NCAA. ARow or Torii Torii either one hurts Over the wall or diving catch?