EvilMonkey

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 25, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) I reread your posts and only saw one question and will attempt an answer, We have 12,000,000 jobs being worked by illegals who may not be paying into social security. Once these 12,000,000 jobs are in the hands of legal employees who will be earning benefits into social security, we will have a crisis. You ask how we can avoid that new huge burden. I thought 12 million was the amount of illegals here, not the amount of jobs they are taknig. You can't be saying that every illegal here has a job, because i KNOW that is false.

We have lots of young pitching just sitting in the minors, time to trade it before it gets exposed any more! Freel would be fine, and probably could be had, but Griffey might be the easiest to get.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4166.html I wonder if Moveon.org realizes the irony in the wording here as it relates to Bush's stance on timetables.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 24, 2007 -> 12:49 PM) I still fail to see a reason for invading the country. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Iran and North Korea are more of a threat. Iraq was attacking us every day up to the invasion by shooting missles at our planes patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones after the first war. I would have liked to have seen every installation that ever lit an American airplane with its radar blown to pieces during that time, byt you know, Saddam had this nasty habit of putting his AA batteries right in the middle of cities. So every day he attacked and provoked us. He was a threat.

That was a good article, I like it.

The Sox have enough hard throwers that a bruising could easily happen. Hell, with as wild as MacDougal has been lately, he can even claim it was an accident!

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ May 24, 2007 -> 08:40 AM) And not every intelligence agency in the world agreed 100% that Saddam had any weapons or was in any way, shape, or form a imminent threat. Any dissent, however, was brushed aside, ignored, or crushed by the Executive. So unless we have 100% confirmation on intelligence from every available resource, we should not act? Let's change your words here a bit to fit a different argument......And not every scientist in the world agreed 100% that global warming is a imminent threat. Any dissent, however, was brushed aside, ignored, or crushed by the Eco-nazis.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ May 23, 2007 -> 07:47 PM) Because I think its a straw man argument. I don't see how adding 12 million people to legal placement within our system will suddenly break SSI. I didn't say 'suddenly', but add 12 million people, and if the usual percentage get hurt and qualify for SSDI or SSI, that is alot of extra money going out that wasn't planned for 10 or even 5 years ago. It's not hard to qualify for this either, So $4000 per year until you get $40,000. So in 10 years, you have people eligble for SSDI. There is a calculator on the SSA page. if someone made $40,000 of REPORTED income for the 10 year period, and then became 'disabled', they would be eligible for $1223 per month. Spouses and children would also be eligble to receive money thru this program up to an additonal $800. And if the breadwinner dies after the 10 years, his survivors get money, $929 per month for your spouse and and additonal $929 per child up to a family maximum of $2312 per month. The 30 year old former illegal who works 10 years then drops dead now has a family getting 2 grand a month for doign nothing, until the spouse reaches 67 and the kids reach 18. I think this benefit far outweighs anythign that person/family put into the system. According the the governments own site, workers have a 3 in 10 chance of becoming disabled before they reach retirement age. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/...shot/index.html According to the govt, about 9% of the total SS beneficiaries are getting SSI. It all adds up. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/s...04/table01.html This shows you how many people get SSI now, and how much it costs. Alot. It MAY not be as dire as some predict, and certainly not as sudden as you seemed to THINK I said, but it will be dramatic if they are all made legal and released into the system. And it STILL doesn't explain the silence from AARP. It's as if thier hearing aides all died or something. They go balistic when you even look crosseyed at social security. You and I can debate the effect this would have, but it WOULD have an effect. They should be screaming as loud as thier leathery lungs will allow them to, but yet they are curiously silent. Why?

He's just trying to compensate for being named Elijah. Tough to be a badass with a name like that.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ May 23, 2007 -> 12:12 PM) I'm 29. I have paid into SSI for 13 years now. I don't yet qualify for full benefits. And honestly, how many of these people are 65? Social Security pays out for a whole lot of things in addition to simply being 65. I wonder why AARP isn't against the immigration bills? That many people suddenly added to the program would overwhelm it. Seniors had a s***fit when Bush tried to privatize part of it because they thought it would lessen the pot of money available to them. Wonder what they think 12 million illegals would do to the system?

I always seem to miss these for the first few days. But not this time! Happy Birthday to the both of you!

Not very f*cking covert, now, is it?

I've done it twice. it was hard to NOT say something that would embarrass my brother, juddling, at his. But I somehow managed. All the above advice is good. Short works best, and personal, with light humor is great. I don't remember much of what i said at the second one, but I was getting compliments on it all night.

The signing bonus in alot of cases acts as a guarantee for at least the first few years of a multi-year deal, as most teams wouldn't want to, or couldn't if they did want to, take the cap hit for releasing or trading someone early in the contract. PLayers get their big money up front, they should stop complaining because they don't like the back end.

I know I heard somewhere that the comingling of the monies began before the 80's, I want to say it was kennedy that did it, to balance the budget. I'll look for that info later.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 17, 2007 -> 10:11 AM) Weird. You have to be of a certain age to purchase or own a gun, so, you'd think you'd also have a minimum age for a FOID card. Well, you don't have to be a minimum age to shoot a gun, but you do have to have a FOID card. I tried to take my son the the gun range and was told he can't shoot unless he gets one.

I read that the only punishment those responsible got was to be suspended for the remainder of the year without pay. 2 weeks, that's it. People have been jailed for less. The people who decided that should be ashamed of themselves.

http://www.vimeo.com/clip:190627

QUOTE(vandy125 @ May 16, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) We keep on mentioning cars as the main problem, but shouldn't we also look at where everyone lives and how far away from work that is? Commute times are going up every year. I think that we also need to find creative ways to get people to move in closer to where they work. If you are 30 minutes from work instead of 60 minutes, how much gas/oil would that save? You would also be closer to public transportation and be able to use that as well. I live 38 miles each way from work. 2 years ago I live 52 miles each way from work. i would have moved closer to work, but just the small increase I got took me from a $120k house, to a $200k house. And a house similar to mine within 10 miles of my work costs over $400k. There was one 2 blocks away from my store that was a mirror-image of the $120k house I had, except for the $375k price tag. I would love to drive less, maybe use public transportation. But to get from Plainfield to Bloomingdale there is no easy way. So I have a 4 cyl car, car pool with Juddling once in a while, and try to combine the rest of my trips into multi-purpose outings. QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ May 16, 2007 -> 04:33 PM) I know this was on the first page but this is completely utterly wrong. The individual owner of the gas station doesnt recieve anymore money from when the gas goes up from 2.50 to 2.75. If anything the high gas prices are hurting the individual owners more. The way the system works is the station owner receives maybe 15 cents per gallon. If the price goes up the owner is still only getting his cut of 15 cents per gallon if not less. So are you telling me that if a station owner fills his tanks up with say $5000 worth of gas that he would sell for $10,000, and the next day the price to him goes up to $5500, if he raises his pump price to net $11,000 that very day, he doesn't get to keep that difference for all the gas he BOUGHT at the lower price, but is SELLING to reflect the FUTURE HIGHER price? Does the gas supplier retroactivly charge him for the increased cost of gas he already bought?

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 16, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) So Thompson can take a few shots at Moore to get votes, but shouldn't have to back it up in a debate? I believe Thompson REPLIED to Moore, so there isn't anything for him to backup.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 16, 2007 -> 08:45 AM) http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r_m/2007...sen_at_war.html I am certain everyone that called Carter chicken for not wishing to debate will now side with Michael Moore, which is just so frickin' funny. For the record, I remain consistent. I didn't think Carter had any obligation to debate and I do not believe Thompson does either. Carter was asked to debate the specifics of his book, with someone who could be considered an expert in the field. Thompson was asked to debate the merits of the Cuban healthcare system, by someone that could only be considered an expert in lying and eating. he was also called out because an article about Fred said that he had 'boxes and boxes of Cuban Monticristos' in his office. Actually they were Dominican Monticristos. I saw a funny 'response' from Fred posted somewhere, if I can find it again, I will link. Oh, and ya gotta love Moore's paranoia about having the movie in a safehouse in case the governemtn tries to confiscate it. Classic.

QUOTE(Damen @ May 15, 2007 -> 11:12 AM) Did she? I don't remember her getting in trouble, but its not something I really care to remember. Anyway, i'm not trying to get into a discussion about who's a better parent, it was just a joke. By the way, what is BDS? Bush Derangement Syndrome

QUOTE(Damen @ May 15, 2007 -> 10:32 AM) Yeah, I'd rather have my daughter act like the bush twins over chelsea clinton too. I guess you would also rather have her intimately aquainted with a cigar. Get over your BDS, will ya? He will be gone shortly.

QUOTE(Middle Buffalo @ May 14, 2007 -> 10:42 PM) It's amazing how much things have changed since I was in high school. Billy Joel released this song in 1989, and my history teacher offered extra credit to anyone who defined all the historical references in the song. At the time, researching that would have been next to impossible (considering that some of the words are kind of hard to understand). Today, it takes about 5 seconds on Google. Two links: The first is a photo-collage (sp?) http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yeli23/Flash/Fire.html The second defines all the pics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Didn't_Start_the_Fire This would have helped me get an A in AP History. My son just got the same assignment today in his social studies class, only they just had to pick 2 of the things mentioned. After showing him how to use google, dogpile and wikipedia, NOW I find your post. Coulda saved us about 15 minutes! I'll tell him to add you as a footnote.

Looks like Howard Dean and the DNC are being sued for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Guess they didn't feel like being inclusive. Or keeping campaign promises. http://www.courthousenews.com/HitchDNC.pdf Seems the Dems also like to talk dirty. That was his reply to a reporter who asked him about the language in a lobby reform bill. How nice. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3966_Page2.html (The quote is at the bottom of the page)