Jump to content

Soxbadger

Members
  • Posts

    19,754
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Soxbadger

  1. Its all in the way you frame it. I just wish people cared more about trying to help the country than catching people in "gotchya" moments. Both sides do it, and its annoying. Anyway, I agree that there have to be higher taxes. Who should the burden be placed on, everyone equally or those who can arguably most afford it? I tend to lean towards the latter, but one way or the other you cant just magically make the debt or deficit go away.
  2. Hopefully Jerry is mad about missing on Lebron and wants to do some spending.
  3. I think that should be the over/under during spring training. A poster called last years team an "abject failure", Id hate to see what people think of a last place team.
  4. My guess is that the likely scenario is that Oney heard something, wanted to be first to report it, reported it, then I got yelled at, so then he said it was speculation.
  5. Australia does have a better case than the US. The US, almost by default, can put together the best bid every cycle. In fact the US could most likely run a World Cup with less than 2 years planning (my guess is that the US is almost always the back up plan in case their is a problem with the selected bid). Qatar's plan is pretty ambitious, you are talking about more spending per capita than China did for the Olympics. They have a ton of money so it could be amazing, or it could be a spectacular failure. The biggest concern I had was that the Qatar bid went out of its way to say Israel could participate. The fact that it was ever in question should be enough to say no thanks to that bid.
  6. It was definitely an unexpected result. That being said I found it funny that because Qatar won, China cant win 2026 because they are located on the same continent (Asia). Since when is Russia not located in Asia? If the rule was that you cant have the games on the same continent in back to back World Cups, shouldnt Russia's win have prevented both Europe and Asia from winning the 2022 bid?
  7. Youre not supposed to believe anything. But at this point in time the NCAA does not have enough information to say there was wrong doing by Auburn or Cam Newton. Furthermore no one is going to really push the issue because the SEC/NCAA dont want to lose Auburn potentially being in the NC game. A NC game between Oregon-TCU or Oregon-Stanford will most likely be less profitable than Auburn-Oregon. So the NCAA/SEC decide to let Newton play the remainder of the season and investigate further. My guess is that eventually none of these wins will count and all records will be vacated. But the NCAA/SEC will have their money, Cam will have his money in the NFL, and no one will care besides the record books.
  8. Exactly. The problem was that the allegations were for wrong doing with Miss St. From all accounts Auburn had nothing to do with it. How can you penalize Auburn for something that Miss St was involved with?
  9. Without evidence that Cam knew what his father was up to, this was the only possible outcome. Because there were no allegations that Auburn was a part of this, you cant punish the school either.
  10. I already responded to the SOS argument, but no one really wanted to discuss it:
  11. Because its not about data, its about what you see with your eyes. When you see Boise State, do you really believe that they are the best team in the nation?
  12. TCU is in the Big East. They dont qualify anymore. (haha that will be my excuse) I think its going to be a great game and I actually would have argued for TCU over Boise St. I think that TCU joining the Big East is just in case Auburn or Oregon goes down, they basically ensured that they are next in line for the Championship game.
  13. I agree the Pac-10 is overrated. Id like to see a SEC-Big 10 championship game, but thats just my bias.
  14. Stats can be misleading. The QB and RB out rushed the Pony Express. One of the guys was named Eric Dickerson. So because those 2 guys at Nevada out rushed the 2 guys on SMU, they are better? Some all time college stats are hilarious due to the competition disparity. If a Division II school goes undefeated should they have an argument that they should be allowed to play in the BCS Championship game? You have to look at the totality of the circumstances. This year you are looking at multiple undefeated and 1 loss teams, many of them having only 1 loss to another top 10 team. Why should those teams be penalized because some one has to lose? Boise has to beat relevant teams through out the season and they have to get rid of the blue field turf. You dont want me to think of you as a gimmick, get rid of that field and the innate home field advantage. If they played on green grass Id respect them far more.
  15. I dont think anyone disagrees that on any given Saturday Boise can win a game against a BCS school or even the best team in the nation. I just dont believe you deserve that shot, unless you took shots yourself. If you put Iowa in the NC game, there is a chance they win. They were pretty close to beating Wisconsin they throttled MSU. But they dont deserve a chance. Boise has to do something to prove to me they are the best team in the country, and that means beating a full slate of BCS conference teams. It just would be doing the rest of the NCAA a disservice if they won the National Championship. (Edit) And the Iowa loss is the point, when teams lose even 1 game to a non-BCS its a huge upset. All Boise does is beat them, and people think that we should just give them a shot at a title?
  16. You dont know that, you have absolutely no proof how Boise would play in the same schedule as Iowa. When is the last time Iowa lost to a non-BCS team? You think Boise is the equivalent of a strong BCS program? Try and find the last time Iowa lost to a non-BCS program. There is a reason why teams like Michigan start the season 4-0, its because a major BCS conference is significantly more difficult down the line. Even the lowest program in your conference is likely to be in the top half, if not the best team in a non-BCS conference. Does anyone here really think that the Nevada offense is more dynamic than Michigan? I dont even like Michigan, but Ill take Denard Robinson every day of the week over Kaepernick (even if the guy and the rb set the most rushing yard record over the pony express). If you watch the games it just isnt even close, I wish Boise would have played Wisconsin because that would have been a great test. Unfortunately its going to be TCU, who now doesnt even count as a non-bcs team (its not coincidence that TCU announces joining the Big East the week before the final BCS announcement, where there was talk of them getting jumped if one of the top 2 lose). I dont think week in and week out Boise can stand with the top teams. I think theyd be a 500 team in the major conferences and we wouldnt be having this conversation.
  17. I gotta disagree with this. The difference between BCS conference and non-BCS is staggering. I am a Wisconsin fan, so I will use them as an example. Since 2002 ( as far as ESPN goes back), Wisconsin has lost 1 game to a non-bcs team (2003 UNLV). I believe they are 23-1 in that span. Wisconsin is on average a solid Big 10 team, but by no means the best. Basically Wisconsin matched Boise's streak, over a 9 year span, with 2 different classes and no one cares because those are games a big program should NEVER lose. I really have no doubt that most top SEC or Big 10 schools, would win 20+ out of 24 games. In fact most of the teams that Boise State beats, are considered teams that the BCS teams MUST beat. If they dont beat them its an upset. Id say that if Iowa and Boise State played 100 times, I would expect Iowa to win 60% of the games.
  18. Im not sure how much stock you can put into SOS. Wisconsin played 2 top 10 teams, yet has a SOS lower than OSU and Boise State. How do you really judge SOS, if you play 10 teams ranked in the 30s is that harder than 2 teams ranked in the top 10 and 8 teams ranked less than 100? I guess I dont know and when I see these ratings, they just dont seem to past the eye test. This would be the ultimate humiliation for ND, giving up their spot in the Big 10 to Nebraska, then being forced to take Nebraska's spot in the Big 12. Sadly I think the Big 10 would go to 13 teams if ND really wanted to join.
  19. Yeah Wisconsin has looked really good. I think the 2 best Big 10 teams are OSU and Wisconsin, even though Wisconsin lost to MSU. That game was strange and Ive been pretty mad about it because I felt Wisconsin let that game slip through their fingers with some bad defense. They also had WR's coming off of injuries so they werent exactly 100%. That being said I feel for MSU because Wisconsin previously was the only 11-1 team to not make a BCS Bowl (Michigan and OSU went over them). I wish we could have a championship game next week MSU v Wisconsin (OSU would have been in Wisconsin's division) and settle it on the field. Good luck to all Big 10 teams, TCU should be an interesting match up. Im sure the Rose Bowl is dreaming of Stanford- Wisconsin but I dont think the computers can make that happen.
  20. Why arent there refs under the goal post? I dont think that call was right, Ill take it but that seemed really wrong.
  21. I dont believe that immigrants demand that the govt provide for them. I believe that most immigrants would gladly accept a deal where they are legally in the United States but do not receive benefits until they have paid into the system. I have never suggested giving immigrants anything more than what they have earned, they will start with 0 benefits. And I dont believe that there is not enough opportunity for people that are already here. I see opportunity every day that I wake up, I see so many opportunities that some times I am bothered by the fact that I wont live long enough to take advantage of all of the opportunities available. America isnt about entitlement, it isnt about people who got here first deserve more. America is about competition, bring us the worlds best, and let them all fight it out for jobs. Why would you want to restrict competition? Why would you want to create entitlement? I dont believe that people should have to wait years to immigrate to the United States. I dont believe that is the right way, I believe that the rules that have been put in place are the "wrong way" and thus I stand up to them. Immigration laws historically have been a mixture of fear mongering and racism, I dont support that, so I dont support the laws that were breed from those ideologies. I guess there was a right and wrong way to become a freed slave. You could escape (the wrong illegal way) or you could hope that your master granted you freedom (the right legal way). Sorry but I would never consider an escaped slave a criminal, I consider the people who created the law that allowed slavery the criminal. Right and wrong is based on perception. No, the United States will provide it to all those who seek shelter in our borders. Once again you bring up issues that try and distort the argument. Who has said anything about "citizenship" or demanding "citizenship", you act as if there are only 2 possible categories for people, 1) illegal immigrant and 2) citizen. Clearly we can create more categories, such as "legal immigrant" some one who is documented, some one who pays taxes, but some one who does not get SS, medicaid, etc until they have hit certain thresholds of payment or unless they decide to opt in through accelerated payments. The answer does not always have to be the extreme, if this truly is about the US economy there is a middle that should benefit all parties. The immigrant is being given the benefit of being allowed to live legally in the US and enjoy the freedoms that come with it. The US is able to tax the immigrant while not having to pay to support the immigrant. Who has said anything about there being no order or procedure? There would most definitely be a procedure to becoming a legal immigrant. There absolutely would be a procedure for becoming a citizen. Just because you allow people to live here legally, doesnt mean that you dont have procedure. It just means that you amend the procedure to allow for easier legal immigration. As for no other country in the world, the US ran this way until the late 19th century. During that time period the US operated fine. The argument no one else does it, isnt a good argument. At one point in human history no other country had a govt that was elected. Does that mean we should have all stayed with despots? Of course not, we as a society evolve and change. So in the end, you agree with me. I have never said anything more than the immigration system needs to be reformed and become more efficient. My reform is to allow the easiest path to legal status in the United States, which I believe will create the freest and most efficient system. I cant recall ever stating that there should be no procedure, that there should be no rules. I have argued against quotas (I dont agree with artificial numbers that deny people freedom arbitrarily), I have argued that all people should be allowed to legally live in the US if they want to. Living legally in the US presupposes that there will be some procedure to become a legal resident. Whether it be signing your name and being given a legal immigrant number at Ellis Island, or whatever procedure they decide. I just cant stand quotas and artificial restriction on labor. Its untenable with my beliefs.
  22. Just because there are rules does not mean that we can not question them. There was not always immigration restriction in the US, for a considerable amount of time anyone who wanted to come to the US could. Now there have been residency requirements and requirements to become citizens and be allowed to vote etc, but it has been well settled precedent that all those who are born in this country are citizens of this country. As it stands now, the rule is that those who are born in the US get citizenship. Why is it okay to argue to change that rule, but I cant argue to change other rules? Also your comparison to criminal law is some what misleading. This is a statutory crime, if the statute was to be changed, it would no longer be a crime. While technically they are criminals today, if the rules were to be changed, they may not be criminals tomorrow. I have never suggested how to treat them, I have suggested changing the law so that they are no longer criminals. You and I have a fundamental difference on what we believe America is. I believe that America is a place where "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," is an ideal to strive for, and not just words we give lip service too. I believe that anyone from any continent deserves a chance at a better life, and I believe that if they want to come to America to seek the life, they have a right to. Its not about other countries, or whether you can live a great life there. If people want to live here, they should have that opportunity. You act like people just leave their country for no reason, but there is almost always some reason. Whether it be monetary or political or who knows, people move for a reason, and its usually because they dont have a great life or opportunity where they are coming from. It is easy to turn your back and say that enough is enough. That we have let in as many immigrants as we can, that we are sorry but we already gave out all the hope and freedom we had. But I dont believe that, Im not just going to deny people a chance at a better life to try and protect my wealth. I dont see any need, I am a capitalist, I believe in competition. Balta, Its hard to say. I definitely think that it would significantly reduce illegal immigration because there would be very little incentive to be here illegally as opposed to legally.
  23. Some immigrants will have money, some may not. Its not sexy to show on tv successful middle class illegal immigrants. People immigrate to America. Immigrants need items to live, immigrants are consumers and therefore even if they are poor they still will consume some items. Immigrants will compete for unskilled labor jobs, which will hopefully increase productivity and decrease cost. Immigrants will pay taxes, they wont get paid off the books and therefore not have to report income to the US. Immigrants will be entrepreneurs, immigrants will be criminals, but in everything they do they will create more pieces to the overall pie. If there was land or space scarcity there come a time where you have reached marginal or no return, but right now the US has a relatively low population density. A problem is "proper minimum wage". Its a govt restriction that artificially increases the cost of labor. It may be a necessary evil, but it creates an artificial problem. The reason why illegal immigrants are preferable to citizens in some cases is that you dont have to pay minimum wage or pay taxes on the labor etc. You can pay them less and therefore can make a greater profit. So if there was not an illegal immigration problem (all immigrants were legal) then there would be no incentive to hire a less killed worker because you would be forced to pay them the same minimum wage. Thus the more qualified candidate will be selected instead of the cheapest. It is my belief that in a capitalist system immigration should be either irrelevant or encouraged. And here is an article by some Ayn Rand guy that explains what I am saying in a fancier way: http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics...mmigration.html
  24. Im willing to give anyone an opportunity. Where have i offered anything more than a chance at a better life? If an immigrant can come to the United States and take my job, I will shake their hand and tip my hat. They earned it, I had every advantage and they beat me. Why would I be upset about that? Why would I care that they want to come to the US to try and build a better life? In my opinion the United States is the best country in the world and I can understand why people would want a better life for their family. I cant change the world, I cant make their countries the US, but I can try and protect their right to have a chance at a better life. To come to the US to try and get a job, or start a business so that they can enjoy freedom. Because that is the way that the US is going to survive. We arent going to be more authoritarian than China, so we have to be free. Freedom is our ultimate export. The United States has suffered depressions, panics, or whatever you want to call them prior to this down economic cycle. During the great depression the exact same arguments were being made. We have to stop immigrants from coming to the US because we dont have jobs, that we needed to close borders and restrict immigration. And we did, and it did not help the economy, because all it did was take away from the pie. Instead of having an influx of new consumers, you had a static population that had just lost the majority of its savings to a stock market crash, thus having no new capital to start business. (Interesting how you can compare this today's economic climate, as well as the similar arguments against immigration.) Restricting immigration had no positive correlation to economic recovery. All we have is the past, I unfortunately cant see into the future, and if I could I wouldnt be here. Based on historical evidence as well as capitalist economic theory, I believe that restricting immigration is bad for the economy. Given that I believe immigration is at worst neutral economically, I think that there is no reason to deny immigrants a chance at a better life in America. Everyone deserves a chance at a better life, at least thats what I believe.
  25. Of course immigration needs management. All those who seek to become American's need to be processed and provided the proper paperwork. But as Ive previously shown, the times of greatest immigration in the US correlate with many of the greatest economic booms in the US. Immigrants are consumers, immigrants are new pieces to the pie, they are new residential developments, new job opportunities. They are what allowed us to settle this country and expand at a rate that allowed us to surpass our European forefathers within 100 years of our countries inception. Yes some countries do allow children of citizens to apply for citizenship. But are we really going to leave these people to the whims of other countries? Its an unacceptable proposition. All humans deserve to live in a country like the United States if they desire. And I will do what I can to make sure that this can happen. We are not truly free until everyone can enjoy the same freedoms that many in our country take for granted. I dont believe that immigrants can destroy America, because I am an immigrant, because 90% or more of us are immigrants. Immigrants are America, and when we lose sight of that we have lost sight of our identity and our uniqueness.
×
×
  • Create New...