EvilMonkey

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jun 15, 2007 -> 02:56 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282833,00.html Get a load of these hispanic activists' reaction to AHNOLD'S statement. They're of the opinion that Mexicans don't need to assimilate at all. And you leftys wonder why we get so upset over this issue. I love this line: While I realize that not much verbal communication is needed to pick fruit or wash dishes, you should need to know a little to cash a paycheck, or communicate with anyone else you meet in your day to day life. Why is it the responsability of emergency personel and police offices to know spanish, people here should be speakign english to them. Or for that matter, why should the shift supervisor at the meat plant have to know spanish, his workers should all know english. But this line should be the one they highlight: Maybe it is because his hispanic support comes from people who are here LEGALLY and can VOTE LEGALLY, and realize that the illegals are tryign to jump the line.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 15, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) I have no clue what OSHA is so dont know what to respond with to that but what my general point is. I do not blame an individual who is willing to work 60 plus hours a week if not 80 plus in a crappy job getting paid like crap so that his kids and their kids have the chance to realize the american dream. Now the illegal immigrants that are lazy or thugs, I have no problems with them being arrested and shipped the hell out of here. But until the government changes its laws, like making factory jobs/slaughter houses more appealing to US citizens and not having it so two illegal immigrants can have a child and have him/her be a US citizen.... I have a problem with going to a factory and arresting 180 people or whatever the number was. As a sidenote, obviously im not referring to allll factory jobs just a portion of them. Here the Feds raided a bunch of Swift meat packing plants for hiring illegals. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16169899/ A bunch of people lined up to take those jobs that nobody wants, and lo and behold, some Americans were in line! http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/loca...5215724,00.html And FYI, OSHA is the agency in charge of workplace safety. They are a b**** to deal with, are like little nazis when they smell blood and can be called by anyone for just about anything. I had a 6 month ordeal with them because they didn't like the containers my pressman was using to store some of his press chemicals.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 15, 2007 -> 11:09 AM) Also a janitor as much as it isnt a pleasant job persay it sure as hell beats working in a factory under hazardous conditions. Have you ever heard of OSHA? They are a b**** to deal with. Just what type of hazerdous factory conditions do you think are still out there? Slaughter houses are about the worst you will get, and it isn't so much that the job is dangerous, it is dangerous if you are careless or tired. And before you can chime back, I DID work in one for about 6 months. As for the jobs no one wants, I TRIED to get some of them when I was younger. i weeded bean fields for 4 summers, that sucks. I tried to get a job at a landscaper 2 summers in a row. The guy hired all hispanic from the people who showed up. No idea if they were illegal or not, but my legal hispanic buddy who I went and applied with got the job.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 15, 2007 -> 09:02 AM) Freedom for Iraqis isn't a way of making their life better than dictatorship and genocide? You don't think they don't want to be able to live life without a secret police knocking on their door and taking away someone in the middle of the night out of their house? And think how much greater robbing a bank would make my life? I would never have to work, and I could spend all kinds of time helping my kids out. Don't you care about my kids? Plus if the bank would make it easier and just give me the money, I wouldn't have to endanger my life to do it. That has got to be a winning situation right? I am sad you have fallen for the fallacy about illegals doing work that most American's don't want. They don't want the jobs because they cannot survive on those jobs wage levels. Corporate America is all too willing to reinforce that fallacy, when in reality they are leaving out the most vital line, which would make it a truth. American's don't want to work those jobs, at below living wages. What people don't seem to realize is there is a cost to illegal immigration. Most immediately it keeps down wages for blue collar American's. After that it does cost money to suppor these people. The study I sighted last week estimates it costs $20,000 a year in a net tax money out flow for each illegal, on average, that is in this country. Are you telling me if you added $20,000 a year to some of these jobs, that no one would still be willing to work them? Somehow I doubt it. And if we really need labor, there are plenty of people all over the world who would be willing to come here and do it, and they would be willing to do it legally. We also wouldn't have to depend on the racist system that gives preferences to the places in the world which are closest to us. There are plenty of people in the world who need help more than lots of the illegals who are here. Why is it that a Mexican who can climb a border fence is a better candidate to live here, than a Rwanada lost boy? Is the fact that one lives closer than the other, more important than the fact that boy might be killed simply for being what race he is? Why shouldn't someone like that have his life made better first? Because it costs too much? Hell Social Security costs too much, but I don't see anyone saying to get rid of it. People get on WalMart so much because they claim by paying thier workers lower wages they shift the burden of care onto the government. Sounds alot like employees who hire illegals at low wages. QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jun 15, 2007 -> 07:54 AM) illegal immigrants do all the dirty jobs that most citizens want to have no part of doing. They work harder than anyone who posts on this message board and get paid a helluva lot less all for the hope that life can be better for their family and a better future for their kids..... so yes I think arresting all of them is utter bulls***. Right now there are 7 hispanics doing the maintenance in the stripmall lot where my store is located. One is riding on a lawnmower, 2 are walking along with leafblowers on thier backs, and the other 4 are follwing behind. 2 are holding garbage cans, 2 are bending down picking up bits of trash and stuff to put in the cans. They have been out there for at least 30 minutes so far, and this is a small strip mall. Moving very slow (except for the guy riding the mower). Yup, they are working hard, just bustin' ass cleaning the parking lot.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 11:19 AM) Well, if these things were set up to work correctly, that would actually be an ideal way to do things, because the money that the wealthy would be pumping into the market would be used to develop and activate renewable sources. For example, if a wealthy person is buying carbon offsets, and that money is used to fund the construction of a wind power station, then that benefits everyone because the wealthy person has paid some of the money to offset the additional cost of building that new windmill. If I want to build a wind farm, and 1/2 the cost of it is paid for through money raised by carbon offsets, then that windfarm is a much more practical thing for me to build. There are an awful lot of scenarios where things start off being a product that only the rich can afford, but then with time, the fact that rich people buy items leads to more money being put into the system and the price of that item dropping at the same time as it becomes more effective. Here, of course, I think the problem is likely the way the market was set up originally. It was set up as being too friendly to business. The ideal situation would be to have an organizing body selling off the carbon offsets to business who generate a lot. The way the Europeans did it, if I understand things, they handed out the carbon offsets to businesses for free who were already polluting, so that they could then move to sell them. So it became a method of making more money for polluters rather than a method of reigning in polluters. Where the system will fail is when is starts penalizing the ones who can't afford to buy offsets, or to reduce their footprint.

As much as people try to keep religion out of it, I think it is center stage. The whole region needs to be brought culturally into this century, and the religions are a big bump in that process. I am not sure if I agree that there will be one region-wide conflict, but there will be many smaller ones.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 09:19 AM) The problem is, this isn't a good idea. You cannot apply the concepts of a commodity to a gas, and expect it to work as a regulatory device. There is no way to physically limit a gas, which means you cannot limit supply. It is impossible to make something function on a supply and demand basis, when you have an infinate supply of it. It is a market imperfection. There is no way a carbon exchange will ever work. plus, it just contributes to Edwards 'two-Americas" but on a grander scale. Those with money can just pay a little extra to offset thier excess, while those just getting by cannot. For the lower to middle class to be carbon neutral, or even to simply reduce, they would have to actually change thier lifestyle and consumption habits, whereas the rich can simply write a check to feel better about themselves.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 14, 2007 -> 09:32 AM) No, it is just showing that there are a whole lot of hypocritical douchebags and if we're going to pick one old statement from 15 years ago, then the least we can do is pick the other side and show their hypocrisy too. But I guess it's different. So what is the point of pointing that out? Does it somehow mitigate the fact that Goracle is a douchbag?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 11:48 PM) Cruise missile attacks and bombings/patrols of the No Fly Zones. And if we're going to go in the way back machine in this thread to make people look hypocritical, let's go back to the Republican majority's take on the US involvement in Serbia and how quickly many of them are changing their tune about warfare now that there is a politician with an R in front of his name to take the credit for being tough internationally. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." Sean Hannity: "No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it." Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel good foreign policy." Karen Hughes (speaking on behalf of George W. Bush): "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." Why did they demoralize our fighting forces in uniform? Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Tony Snow: "You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo." Joe Scarborough (R-FL): "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): "I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe men when I say we're running out of cruise missiles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left for security reasons but we're almost out of cruise missiles." Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today." Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK): "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag." Sean Hannity: "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" Why didn't they support the President in a time of war? Gov. George W. Bush: "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN): "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): "The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president." Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "You can support the troops but not the President." Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce." Why did they blame America first? Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX): "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode." Michael Savage: "These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton." Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL): "This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals." Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-IN): "It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation." Bob Djurdjevic: "By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia." Your post sounds more like the "They did it too" argument. War: good if Dems start it, bad if not.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 09:11 PM) Nuke, do you think the message on the Statue of Liberty should be sand blasted away? There you go, assuming that Nuke is anti-immigrant, when he is anti ILLEGAL immigrant. Do you think the laws governing LEGAL entry into this country should be erased and ignored/

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) That is a good point. However, I would hope that we allow our elected officials to have their own view point. They were elected with those view points. Someone else should get elected if the general population does not agree with them and views that opinion as too big of a problem. You may call this a straw argument, but I'm going to try and draw a correlation that does not involve religion. I'm sure someone else can come up with a better one. I am in no way correlating Catholicism to the oil industry. I am just making the point about calling someone a title that you do not personally believe. The point is an extreme one to make it obvious. If an elected official was visiting the heads of the oil industry and they expected everyone to call them "The Environmentalists", but the elected official did not believe that was true, should he still be required to call them that because of etiquette? Now, you may point out the difference between the heads of oil industry and that of a sovereign nation, but "His Holiness" is a religious title. It is not a title for the head of a nation. The only problem with that is the Vatican is reconized as a nation-state, so his title would be one of a head-of-state.

The story isn't too clear on this, but the way I heard it, during Bush's visit with the Pope, he answered ONE question with 'Yes Sir'. How many times during his visit did he say 'Your Holiness', or did he call his 'Sir' throughout? if it was one question that he said that to, you all are making a mountain out of a molehill. Pelosi probably crapped bigger f***ups than that while trying to play ambassadore over in the middle east.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) I could only imagine what comments we would get by some people here if it were Hillary or Obama who did this instead of the commander guy. crickets chirping. not hard to imagine.

Enjoy.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 10, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) Bush isn't Catholic. He has no obligation to refer to Benedict as "His Holiness". Bingo! Besides, doesn't that title sort of scream 'i'm better than you', and imply subserviance from all who address him that way?

I can have no sympathy for this woman....nice picture of her being hauled away. boo-hoo This judge is like quicksand....the more you fight it...the deeper in she's gonna get!!!!!

Best Bud Light commericial you won't see on tv.....

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 8, 2007 -> 07:32 AM) The 614 page immigration bill has been withdrawn for now, with the possibility of it being re-introduced later. When noone is looking.

I wasn't even considering buying a PS3 until just now. Here is the trailer for Metal Gear Solid 4. all I can say is OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MGS 4 trailer

I cheated memorial Day weekend and bought some ribs at GFS. Just had to throw them on the grill for about 20 minutes. Suprisingly good! Most of the people who ate them thought I had them cooking all day.

How hard would it be to build a refinery just over the border in mexico? They can pipe the stuff in, or it would be a short haul by truck or rail, mexico has lax enviro laws so it can probably be built fast, it would probably cost half of what it would cost to build here, even factoring in all the bribes you would have to pay and it would provide a few jobs for the area, maybe keeping at least a few people from crossing the border.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 4, 2007 -> 10:12 PM) Nothing compares to me. How about mine in comparison?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jun 5, 2007 -> 03:07 AM) I thought he was stripped last year of his committee assignments. I think he was just denied the committee chair that he was 'promised'.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 4, 2007 -> 08:05 AM) So you are saying Clemens might be headed to the Sox bullpen? That deserves a rimshot.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Jun 4, 2007 -> 01:34 AM) Most vague/wrong sentence ever. Are you saying mlbers swing and miss 2/3 of the time? Certainly not correct. Are you saying mlbers only hit for a .333 average on first pitch, absolutely center cut thigh high fastballs? Also terribly wrong. Sure, you tell them 'hey, i'm throwing you a bp fastball belt high' and they will hit it a ton. You throw first pitch strikes, they don't hit it as much. Sometimes they even don't swing! And by hit it I mean get a hit, not make contact with the ball. Don't be so literal.