illinilaw08

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 08:27 AM) Again I ask, what should I have to give up to pay for other people's healthcare? Well, you are paying for your healthcare. Everyone's standard of care and access to care just becomes the same. But more to the point, you are misrepresenting the ACA debate. The ACHA and whatever comes out of the Senate are going to roll back tax hikes on people making over $200k annually - the tax hike that paid for the subsidies in the ACA (if I'm remembering this right). The guy who has to pay a little more starting on dollar $200,000.01 of the year isn't choosing between health care and putting food on the table.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 09:37 AM) Of course there is. If it's not worth your expense to move then either a. the job you have isn't much worse than the one you are looking at or you have something holding you to your area. People won't move for a worse position. there is always a plus and a minus. I've moved plenty of times between when my parents made the choice and when I made the choice. I'm not sure this gets to the heart of the issue. The issue isn't low paying job to low paying job. The issue is no job to low paying job. The small, rural towns that Trump was targeting during the election that lost their anchor employer and have massive unemployment. What do those people do? The jobs are urban, but they can't afford to make the move. They can't afford to go back to school to learn a skill. Relocating isn't really a feasible choice if you can't afford to move to the jobs.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 18, 2017 -> 03:07 PM) You go where the jobs are. My parents did it. I did it. My kids should do it. The government shouldn't "owe" or "provide" any of this. It's not like we live in China where the government controls....Oh wait you do. (sorry couldn't resist) I can't believe I keep falling for your scenarios. It's tough for a low wage worker to relocate because of all the costs associated with it - including the higher housing costs in urban areas (which also happens to be where the jobs are). I have relocated three times since I graduated from law school, all over the country. Moving is expensive. Finding housing is stressful - even with a stable job in place. The point here - there's more to it than "you go where the jobs are."

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 03:42 PM) I've been reconsidering the link between taxes and jobs. What we really need are jobs that pay a livable wage and allow people to naturally pay for things like health care. Perhaps one reason we have so many people unable to afford the necessities is so much income is rolling into the government instead of being spent by you and me. So money to buy the cheap imported stuff at WalMart doesn't get taxed. Money to buy the more expensive US made product gets taxed to the point we have to buy the cheaper imports. Looking specifically at luxury ships, the US was a leader, now it is the Netherlands. I can only think of one real world class player in the market somewhere in Oregon or Washington, I forget now. IIRC they were originally in California but where taxed out of there. One reason so few are made in the US is we don't buy many anymore. Health care is unique though. If the government isn't involved in health care, and I contract skin cancer (which I have a genetic pre-disposition to contract!), then it doesn't ultimately matter what livable wage I'm earning. The amount of health care that I will have to consume, and the cost of that health care will ravage my finances. I agree with you beyond that point - that getting more companies to pay a livable wage - and a true livable wage provides value. But what evidence do we have that lower taxes on businesses leads to increased gains for labor? Isn't it more likely that those gains are passed on to shareholders? Absent, of course, the feds significantly increasing the minimum wage...

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 10:37 AM) If we base our laws on what the least responsible person in America will do then we lose everything. One big difference is most anything irresponsible someone can do with a gun almost always means they have broken a law. But we already base some laws around that. There's a minimum test of competency to drive a car here. Why? Because someone who does not know how to operate a car is a major danger to the rest of society. I know that the Second Amendment, in theory, creates the distinction between firearms and cars, but to me they aren't that dissimilar - particularly when confronted with the Open Carry guys.

QUOTE (striker @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 10:10 AM) Yeah, that might be a stretch. Maybe Marquez. I'd think they would want more veteran presence in the rotation. Depending on that youth come September might be tough. Though they could do a 6 man rotation to stretch it out. Same with the bullpen. Holland could be a late season risk due to not playing for awhile. My take is that the Rockies aren't going to sell out for this year. Gray should be back soon. Hoffman has been ridiculous. Freeland and Sanzatela look like legitimate mid-rotation or better options. Marquez has shown flashes. And Chatwood and Anderson each have some degree of MLB success. They aren't trading for a starter, period. They could use some back end of the bullpen help, but Holland has been great in the closers role, so I'm not sure Robertson is a fit. And as noted above, the Rockies organization might not have much goodwill for Tommy Kahnle. I do think the Rockies will look for bullpen help around the deadline. I'm skeptical that the Sox are a fit.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 07:12 AM) Rockies would like him back after bullpen blew an 8 run lead in last 4 innings last night. I'd be really interested to see how the Rockies felt about bringing Kahnle back since he was an absolute disaster there. Rockies definitely need back end bullpen help, but I'm not sure how much Robertson makes sense for them either in light of his struggles in non-save situations. Also, their farm system has been raided by callups this year. Rodgers, Pint and McMahon (who has been raking this year) are the only headliners that they still have. And Pint has struggled pretty badly.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 08:33 AM) It's so ridiculous that they are talking about this bill as 100% a political issue, and not a healthcare one. There were some real responses to the questions in there. Murkowski came across as intelligent and informed, for one. So did Portman. The problem is that there's no way politically for the Republicans to alter health care to both increase access and decrease cost if they use the House bill as any part of a framework.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 08:24 AM) I laugh at your thought that police in general are 'well trained'. Most departments have zero range qualifications after the first year and they certainly don't have the budget to allow cops to train on the city's dime. You are again assuming a scene where everyone has a gun and will panic. yes, you might. And not everyone has a gun. if you think you can't handle one, don't get one. Practice if you do. I was nervous as hell in my one time having to defend myself with arms, but still ready to do so. This is the problem here. I know a lot of very responsible firearm owners. And I know some people who own firearms and think that by virtue of owning a gun, they are John Wayne. The problem with the bolded is that there are some number on firearm owners who can't responsibly handle their weapon, and that can innocent victims at risk. If I could rearrange the bolded, I'd say, "if you can't handle one, you can't get one."

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 08:47 AM) His home runs are always no doubters. You see him connect and you know he's so strong it's gone. Yep. Even with all the Ks, Davidson has shown enough this year to convince me that he's a useful piece for the Sox - maybe not as an everyday 3B, but certainly as a bench bat.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 08:54 AM) https://www.facebook.com/jthodgkinson Seems quite the Democrat follower and perhaps a BernieBro, at least according to his Facebook page. And now a bunch of people are lambasting him on his own page. Wonder how ling until it is taken down. Posts like these are also in bad taste right now. I'm just saying.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 14, 2017 -> 07:48 AM) There is no justification for this. They are using political means and it should be met with political means. Violence has no place there. Agreed. Both sides of the aisle should strongly condemn events like these.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jun 13, 2017 -> 02:24 PM) The only concern that I have so far with the draft is that it seems like the Sox FO still doesnt put a high priorty on defense. Really wanted to see that come through in this rebuild. I assume there are probably very few players that are great with both offense and defense but still would like to have seen some more promising reports that guys that they take play exceptional defense. Seems like most organizations think they have a better chance to coach up a player's defensive abilities than the hit tool.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 01:12 PM) Trump is currently unequivocally accusing Comey of lying under oath right now. That seems like a pretty big deal. Said he'd be 100% willing to go under oath to make these claims about Comey, says he'll tell us about the tapes "shortly" Trump flatly denied ever even saying that he "hoped" the Flynn investigation would go away, while the main GOP/RNC line of defense yesterday was that your boss/the POTUS saying "I hope" isn't an order. video of the exchange: https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/873258253567787010 Please have him go under oath. Please have him go under oath... ETA: I know that's never going to happen, but still.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 02:59 PM) He's got talent, but the problem is the talent needs the ball to be of use. Irving may be the best PG ever in terms of his dribbling and ability to finish around the rim, but that's basically all he is good at. He's not good on defense (or doesn't care) and he's not a good off the ball shooter. Love is pretty good at everything but not great at anything. And everyone else, well, there's not a lot there. A lot of aging vets that can't hang with the under-30 Warriors. The Warriors are the opposite. Not only do they have more talent, but the talent fits together. No one needs to be ball-dominant. They can fly around and be apart of the offense. Yes, Durant's been taking the big shots, but that's mainly because of what the defense is giving him. This is a really good point. The job Kerr has done of getting guys like Draymond Green and Klay Thompson to buy into their roles, and the fact that Steph Curry was willing to embrace a role next to Durant to win titles is pretty incredible.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 05:13 PM) I typically think Comey does come off as credible because both sides can't decide whether they like him. I don't think whether Trump is a liar is really up for debate and I agree at face value that I'd take Comey's word over Trump's. Hoping an investigation would go away isn't really a crime. I think it's disputable whether that's a directive. He didn't qualify that Trump's words nauseated him or left him rogue on the matter like he did with Lynch. It seems like Lynch's directive, as he put it, had more of an effect on him than Trump's yearning. Now people will say that's not the point of the investigation but I don't see how that matters. I do see how you could look at Trump's firing of Comey and say it looks very bad for Trump but if you're Trump and you know you didn't collude with Russia to interfere with the election do you keep giving validity to that conspiracy? The investigation on Russia has been going on since before the election with two different administrations and a full-fledged effort from the majority of the media and they still can't find a smoking gun. The people in Congress who investigate it - Waters - "There's no evidence of collusion." Feinstein - "I haven't seen any evidence." Comey on the NYT piece that started the conspiracy - "almost entirely wrong." At some point, whether people like Trump or not, they're going to have to let him go on with his administration. See SS's post earlier in the thread. Both the 5th and the 8th Circuit have found that "hoping" someone will do something can uphold an obstruction of justice conviction. The President clearing the room and telling the guy investigating Flynn that he "hopes" the investigation will go away sounds a lot like the depiction of Don Corleone in the Godfather "hoping" that someone will do what he wants before a horse head ends up in the guy's bed. And you keep misconstruing people's quotes on Russia. Flynn resigned because of his undisclosed contacts. Kushner didn't disclose trying to create a backchannel to Russia before Trump was inaugurated (something the WH hasn't denied). Sessions allegedly failed to disclose 3 separate contacts with Russia prior to Trump's inauguration. The Russia investigation might not reach Trump, and to date, there's no evidence that it does, but a lot of his associates are still under investigation. Last point here, investigations like this take a long time - Watergate was at least 2 years long and that didn't involve a foreign power. Drawing conclusions on the investigation is ridiculous. It might all come to nothing, but we're not even close to being able to draw the conclusion that Trump and his administration are clean.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 05:05 PM) Thank u Illinilaw. Did you see my post on my Limbaugh listening habit? I don't really listen to him much. Some, yes? I think he's fairly entertaining, don't like the incessant commercials and actually won't put up with them. But you come here and you post Limbaugh's opinions on Trump and then make comments about how maybe Trump is actually doing really, really well. No one is going to take you seriously if you post Limbaugh's opinions. And I just want to make sure that you understand why that is...

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 04:17 PM) I don't think it's a important whether Lynch's corrupt behavior ended up hurting the left or not. If you would, since I appreciate your level headedness around here, speak to my post that precedes yours. What is the takeaway today? To me it's Loretta Lynch is as corrupt as I said she was when she had the tarmac meeting last year and John McCain needs to disappear from the public eye for good. I don't think we learned all that much today otherwise . I'd like to hear your take and I'm open to admitting otherwise, but it's a lot of he said, he said. Trump's side says this and Comey says that. Now, why do you think that Comey's testimony on Lynch ranks as very credible, and his testimony on Trump ranks as "he said, he said."

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 04:17 PM) I don't think it's a important whether Lynch's corrupt behavior ended up hurting the left or not. If you would, since I appreciate your level headedness around here, speak to my post that precedes yours. What is the takeaway today? To me it's Loretta Lynch is as corrupt as I said she was when she had the tarmac meeting last year and John McCain needs to disappear from the public eye for good. I don't think we learned all that much today otherwise . I'd like to hear your take and I'm open to admitting otherwise, but it's a lot of he said, he said. Trump's side says this and Comey says that. Honestly, Comey came off as extremely credible today. And he reaffirmed several times that he thinks Trump is a liar. Based on the way Comey has carried himself over the last several months, and the way that Trump has carried himself over the last several months, I don't think there's any doubt that Comey's testimony is more credible than Trump.* I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt after today that Trump told Comey that he "hoped" the investigation into Flynn went away, and I don't think there's any doubt that Comey interpreted that as a directive from the President to end the investigation into Flynn. That testimony, combined with what followed - Trump firing Comey because the Russia investigation wouldn't go away (Trump's own words) - makes this look really, really bad for Trump. Thanks for the compliment. I try to come off as level headed. Sometimes that doesn't happen though. * Per Politifact, 69% of Trump's statements qualify as Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 12:57 PM) The rules should be, "Behave like Greg." Very people seem to respect the fact I have never come close to attacking anyone even though I have been insulted quite often in posts. I wish more people would back my positions. There are a lot of lurkers who are silent that agree with some of my positions, I am convinced of that. In real life, many agree with me when I present my theories. Greg, I think you are generally a very respectful poster. But I really wish you would actually educate yourself on some of the stuff you talk about. Like with Rush Limbaugh. You know that Limbaugh has made his money as an entertainer that goes after the Democrats and the Left right? He's not a respected guy on policy. He's a shock jock. He's the Jay Marriotti of Conservative talk radio. Just because Limbaugh is popular does not mean that anyone should take him or his opinions seriously.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 04:09 PM) Do you always defend maseked offenders of felonies or just when the victims have different views than you? Hey! Rabbit and I agree in the Filibuster! Bolt may have pretty terrible views on things, but that doesn't excuse these guys attacking him.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 03:48 PM) I'm not sure if it matters how the revelation came about. Everyone is so concerned with election interfence and the hearing provided us with a bonafide instance of election interference. 99% of things done in congress are dont to support the team. All of a sudden that is an issue when deciding what is permissible or important? Rabbit, you are a guy who consistently states that he has no political affiliation. But everything that you post in here is critical of the Democrats. And when you do criticize Trump or the Republicans, you seem to do it with a "but" and then downplay (see, the great "President's words don't matter" discussion). So, rather than talk about Loretta Lynch - who clearly is not relevant to the Russia investigation which was the point of the Comey testimony - I am genuinely curious to hear how you feel about Comey's testimony as it applies to Donald Trump. Not how it applies to the Democrats, not how Russia is a red herring and has been debunked. How do you feel about sworn testimony that Donald Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn?* * Note just for the sake of making sure this is out there. Lynch asked Comey to downplay the investigation into Clinton's e-mails by referring to it as a matter instead of an investigation. This is bad! But Comey did NOT testify that Lynch asked Comey to make the investigation go away. That's worse behavior! And Lynch asking Comey to downplay the investigation blew up in the Democrats' face since that led to all of Comey's actions regarding the e-mails during the campaign.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 10:31 AM) This is why Whitman knocked it out of the park on his two hires for basketball and football. He had his guy in place BEFORE firing the current coach. They may not pan out on the field/court, but I like that he was quiet about it and got it done before having to go through the public denials. I don't think that's right on Underwood. They tried to get Monty Williams in place early, but he said no. My understanding is that Whitman had done enough behind the scenes diligence that he knew who the reasonable floor was on the search, but they weren't aware Underwood was available when Groce was fired.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 02:21 PM) Approval ratings aren't what I am getting at here. Even if someone disapproves of their "own" party candidate, they will typically still carry water for them when they compare them to the "other" party candidate. Hillary Clinton had some of the highest disapproval ratings in history, and entire wing of the party who blamed her for costing Bernie Sanders. But that wing sure as hell picked up the bucket and ran with it once it was Donald Trump they were running against. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. There were a lot of Sanders voters that stayed home, voted 3rd party, or even voted for Trump. And voters who identify as Democrats - even the ones who disliked Hillary Clinton - still recognized that Hillary Clinton was more likely to support policies that the average Democratic voter supported than Trump. Should those voters have stayed home? On the other side, there was a pretty significant Never Trump component of the Republican Party... until the actual ballots were cast and Trump won the Presidency. But why is this unique to the 21st Century?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 01:16 PM) "This is real America," Eric Trump said. "And to be able to go in there and cater to them as well; I think that's a beautiful thing." It drives me insane when people say that. America is comprised of 50 states. By definition, all of it is "real America." The bolded is pandering to an ideal that wearing a flag on one's sleeve makes them more patriotic and better at being American than those fake Americans living in California.