EvilMonkey

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) Instead they're coming out, saying the bill is still unconstitutional and calling for state-level nullification: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entr...se-to?ref=fpblg I anticipate the conservative outrage over someone challenging the legitimacy of the court. LIke all the outrage over the now unneeded pre-emtive strikes against the court, 'warning' them not to overturn this case, blah blah blah. All the court did was say the things wasn't unconstitutional by changing the verbage to 'tax'. They didn't say it was a good law. Nothing wrong with people still not liking it and seeking to change it thru legal means.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 11:46 AM) Classless and stupid. Of course, there is also a zero percent chance you would have called out the Republicans who would have done the same thing at the fringes. Had to know there'd be some stupidity like this after the decision regardless of what it was. Actually, I would have. Especially since top Repubs all came out before this decision and said if it went there way, there would be no 'spiking the ball', like Obama did. I expect the stupidity from blogs and message boards. Not national committee chairmen.

Executive director of the DNC tweets: "It's Constitutional. b****es." And saw on Drudge someone from DNC also tweeted "TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!" Way to be classy, Dems, as always.

Should be the Will Ohman DEpreciation thread.

The Obama Gift Registry? Really? He doesn't give his own kids birthday presents, so instead he wants YOURS. Wow. Just wow. Ask not what your guests can buy for you, ask what they can give to Barak! Who needs a gravy boat, Obama needs more money!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Martin, a kid with no violent history, jumps out of the shadows and says "You're gonna die tonight!" When shot in the chest, he sits up and says "you got me!" That isn't really a believable scenario. Except for those Fight Club videos he is in that YouTube keeps removing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 04:14 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner Read your own link. Project Gunrunner was workign in partnership with the Mexican officials and esulted in 650 cases referred for prosecution. Simply because the 'stated' goal of Fast and Furious was the same, it gets lumped under the same umbrella name. F&F, under Obama, had no oversight, no Mexican cooperation, no nothing. If it wasn't any sort of conspiracy, there are boatloads of people that should be fired over it, immediately. They were warned, and tried to burn the whistleblower.Then, as usual, the attempted cover up makes things look even worse. I also notice many attempts n the citations to refer to F&F and Project Gunrunner, even tho it is it's own operation, hoping to tie it back into Bush. Holder f***ed up on this one, big time. Dems burned Gonzalez for less.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 04:12 PM) To get a job paying cash for a day's labor, you have to show up to work the fields/job site. Your proposal doesn't address that. You have to show an ID to turn in metals for recycling now, no proof required to get paid for work?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 03:56 PM) Which is why the Bush administration started it. To make guns seem bad. Um, no, it wasn't started under Bush. This is an Eric Holder/Obama production. One complete with the attempted silencing of the whistle blower, cover ups, deaths, lawsuits lying under oaths and soon to be a resignation.

There wouldn't be too much need for deportation if other things were done. Like checking status before getting benefits. Or making sure people going to school actually belong there and are here legally. And fining the companies that hire outside the system. And not giving drivers licenses to non citizens. To get a job you have to fill out your I9 and show either a US passport, certificate of citizenship or naturalization OR both a government issued ID and a SS card or birth certificate. How about the same stuff for school registration, or for welfare applications (or any other social service application). You have the 'kids' who are here now and been here for 18 years because all along the way too many agencies were willing to just close their eyes and not check, or not do anything about it. Cut off the funds and illegal jobs, you end up with many self deporting.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) You mean a spokesman from the NRA, a group who insists that Obama's lack of doing anything at all on gun control is evidence of his dastardly gun control plans, might not be making an intellectually honest argument!? Fast and Furious was hardly 'lack of doing anything'. It was a complete setup to try and make guns seem worse than they are to advance his own agenda. And it got people killed, including American border patrol agents.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 11:07 PM) Right these are the real concerns, isolationist fears, strangle competition before it starts. Minimum wage is a sacred cow, no one is touching that even though its a significant problem and our attitude has to be adjusted. Back before globalization minimum wage in a country could work, but now when you can simply move the factory when labor gets to expensive, you have to make a hard decision, do you lower minimum wage to compete worldwide, or do we cling to the idea of American exceptionalism. (this is an argument for another day) How do I think it will play with Americans who want to protect their job against someone who is more hungry and will harder? Work harder. I hate barriers of entry, I despise them. Barriers of entry are great when you are part of the exclusive club, "lets make passing the bar harder that way there are less lawyers and we can all make more money and work less!!!!" I disagree with that, if someone of the street can walk into my office and do my job better, they should get my job. If someone from another country can come to the US and beat me at my job, well they certainly earned it. If we believe in American exceptionalism then shouldnt American workers beat non-american workers? Just to be clear, I dont care what American's who want to take the easy road want. I am an American, I do not fear immigrants. I think most economic theory would support the fact that an increase in demand (more people) will cause there to be an increase in supply, which would result in an increase of jobs. As for your hypothetical, 10 million people arent going anywhere. The number of applications are generally around 5-6mil per year, so the US would likely be looking at maybe an influx of 10mil people within the first 5 years and after then it should stabilize. Even if it was 20mil, that would result in an increase of less than 10% of the population. The US would still be fraction of the size of China/India who will be our future competitors. The US would still have plenty of space, and quite frankly the US could really use more demand in the housing/land market, the banks are just sitting on empty properties. 'Space' isn't the problem. Lack of a bottomless wallet is. Lack of jobs is.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 10:28 PM) So what you want is complete open borders, no limits. So how exactly does that work with a limited resource set. Because other countries, with work permits don't plant 11 million foreign workers plus indefinitely. It's not sustainable. Sure it is, just like social security!!!!!!!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 08:12 PM) Andrew Carnegie, immigrant. What makes you think that immigrants wont make up lower, middle and upper class. US history is filled with immigrant success stories. http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/08/08...mmigrants/1.htm IMMIGRANTS can. Illegal immigrants will have a much harder time. Big difference. Take that farm worker and make him legal. He was paying the sales taxes and so on before, so no now revenue there. And his income is not going to be that of Carnegie, so I don't see any added cashflow to the tax coffers, just an easier route to the free benies thanks to amnesty. nice try. Nobody here ever said LEGAL immigration was a bad thing.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 18, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) How do I plan for paying for it? By collecting taxes from people that previously were getting benefits and not paying taxes. Right now they are in the US, getting services, costing money, and many of them pay $0. How would it be a bad thing if they are in the US, getting services, costing money and paying something? What makes you thik they will have a high enough income to actually end up PAYING anything? The people working in the shadow economy make crap, which is why they rely so heavily on the benefits. If they still making crap, they will still be a drain.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 17, 2012 -> 09:01 PM) What would you have done? Where are you deporting them to when they legitimately aren't from that country? Are you arresting 2 year olds? This is exactly waht I mean that nothing will ever get fixed when you refuse to acknowledge we have a massive problem with millions of people, and just pretend "oh they're lawbreakers they must be punished". Perhaps if schools were allowed to check thngs like this, they would not have BEEN here long enough to get thru high school and we don''t have this situation. Hell, I know that here in Illinois the schools can't even verify income or employment status when someone applys for free lunch.I acknowledge that they are people and it isn't a pleasant situation. But neither is incenting millions more people to break the law and reap the benefits if they can hold out JUST long enough to where it is politically suicide to deport their kids. And please answer the first question, why should hispanics who follwed the law care anythgin about those that didn't?

And no one has yet responded to my point, why should someone of hispanic decent be all for makign millions of illegal hispanics legal, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE ALSO HISPANIC? Since Balta completelyt missed my point about criminals and assholes, let's try again. I don't freak out every time a white guy gets busted for something because I happen to be white as well. IF he broke the law, or was an asshole, so be it. So why do some hispanics need to defend other hispanics just because they are also hispanic? If the first hispanic was a criminal or broke the law, oh well. As for your individual cases of people you know who were rbought here when they were young, what would you have done? Every decade or so just reward those whose parents were able to avoid deportation with citizenship? Way to rig the game for even more law breaking.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 07:15 PM) I think perjury charges are a waste of time, they are almost impossible to prove (see the Barry Bonds thread where I rail on it.) That being sad, your original argument was that the Prosecutor was editing the testimony, which wasnt true. You now are making the correct point, its likely that she didnt know. The estimate question is harder, but I wouldnt allow someone to be convicted over perjury over it. If I was pressed, I could estimate how much money I have in a bank account to within $500. So Im not being lazy, you asked if she edited testimony, I said she didnt. You now are completely changing the argument to something that I agree with, this is a waste of time, and likely being done as an intimidation tactic. Wow theres a shock, the govt using its power to intimidate people. Its just usually you dont see a lot of Republicans who care about the govt mistreating "alleged criminals and their family". How is leaving out entire questions, then weaving 2 questions together that didnt go together to make your case, NOT editing? And you also don't usually see a lot of liberals jumping to convict a minority before the case is even tried.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) Hopefully we do hear about this for 7+ days, it's a great campaign move. You think so? How are all these millions of Americans who are out of work going to feel having to compete against a few million MORE people for the same rare jobs? It will 'fire up his base', but as with most base firing moves of either side, it also energizes the other side's base.

An open question to any of hispanic heritage here, either legal immigrants or first born. YOU are here legally and are enjoying the benefits of citizenship. YOU did things the right way. do YOU really want millions of people who DIDN'T do tings the right way here JUST because they share a heriage with you? I have no affinity for people just because they are white. If you are an asshole or a crook, you are an asshole or crook regardless of your color or religion. So are you for helping people cheat the system because they share your heritage or are you against it?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 04:53 PM) No the bolded questions are irrelevant to the other questions. Either she A) knew how much money her husband had or she B) didnt know. If the answer is A, she perjured herself, it doesnt matter that she said her brother in law may know. If the answer is B, she didnt commit perjury. Here is a similar example, well use Barry Bonds: Did you take steroids? No He is charged with perjury. It doesnt matter if the next question is: Do you know anyone who may have known if you took steroids? Yes Who? My doctor. There mere fact he was telling the truth in the omitted section does not change whether or not he perjured in the original question. Perjury is not about context, it is about whether or not you answered truthfully to a specific question. Thus the part omitted is irrelevant. The question is, did his WIFE actually know about the money at the time of the questioning. If she did know about the money her answer "I do not" is perjury. It does not matter if his brother in law knew, what matters is whether she knew at the time she answered "I dont know." Quit being lazy and read what was asked. Do you CURRENTLY know HOW MUCH money is in there. Considering they were in court and at any time it could change with a new donation, she said no, she doesn't know the amount. Not no, I dont have any money, just that right now, when you asked, I dont know. BUT, i can tellyou who does. So unlessthey are going to prove that seconds before she was asked that question she checked the balance on her smartphone or something, there is no way that answer can be considered false, or to construe that she didnt know there was any money, because she said there was, but didn't know the exact amount. And when they tried to get her to guess, so they COULD have a number to stick her with, she refused to guess. Do you know what your bank account balance is right now? Without looking, do you know what checks have cleared, gas station holds been released or deposits actually accredited? If you had $500 and deposited $1000, you could say $1500, but then hey, if that rent check didnt post yet, ytou might actually have $2500, liar!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 04:03 PM) I didnt see that, where was there a question that they used an answer from a different question? I dont know what journalists do, I do know that in court every day this occurs when you are impeaching a witnesses testimony. I could be missing something, but to me it just seems she omitted certain sections, which is absolutely allowed. Take just these lines, looks like she is lying about the money: The text as it appears in the actual transcripts: Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was — A: Currently, I do not know. Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected? A: I do not. Add in the lines that were omitted between those two questions, she is sayign i can't tell you an exact number, but I am not hiding anything, here is who knows. The text as it appears in the actual transcripts: Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was — A: Currently, I do not know. Q: Who would know that? A: That would be my brother-in-law. Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense? A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone. Q: Okay. So he’s not there now. A: No, he is not, sir. Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected? A: I do not. Can you NOT see how that testimony is dramatically changed by omitting those 3 questions? Leaviung those out to get an inditement is like lying. Those aren't somethgin she said 10 minutes later, they were direct answers to questiosn asked, that she supposedly lied about.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) Because the prosecutor didnt edit testimony. The prosecutor merely left out certain portions, which is standard practice when you are trying to impeach a witness. The prosecutor doesnt have to argue for the defense, its up to the defense to argue that when the statement is taken in its entirety that it was not perjury etc. So there really is nothing to comment on. It would be like arguing I did something wrong because I made a witness out to be a liar over a certain part, but didnt also bring out a part that may have been exculpatory. Editing testimony would have been if the answer was "no" in the transcript and the Prosecutor changed it to "yes". Even mildly dishonest journalists use ... to indicate that they left something out that was there. Piecing together lines that didnt go together IS editing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 15, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) Why do you post this without adding a link? Augh!!!! Extra clicks! Link was a few posts up when I originally said it.

So, no comments on the prosecutor editing testimony?