Drunkard

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/us/tyson-foods-indicted-in-plan-to-smuggle-illegal-workers.html?_r=0 Take it up with the NY Times and the Feds in Chattanooga, TN then.

The problem with immigration is that nobody wants to get at the true heart of the issue, especially the pro business Republicans. Trump spoke out about it briefly during the primary debates before he sold his soul to the GOP in exchange for support of most of the party/leadership, but of course he got the idea wrong anyway with his build a wall nonsense so nobody picked up on it. If you really want to stop illegal immigration you had to put strict penalties in place against the businesses who hire them. It's way easier to keep an eye on thousands of businesses than it is to keep an eye on millions of individuals. Businesses like Tyson chicken and countless others make a killing hiring illegal labor and paying them piss poor wages. Then every few months they allow the INS to raid the communities where the people live (housing provided by Tyson), ship a few hundred out by the bus load and magically the next day a new bus load shows up to take their place. They need to audit the businesses with a reputation for hiring illegals and inspect their HR records. First offense is a small fine, something like $100 per illegal worker in order to protect the businesses who may have made an honest mistake. Then you give them something like 30 days to get their act together and clear out the illegal workers on the payroll. Getting caught once though means you are subject to random audits (after the initial 30 day period) and each time you are caught afterwards they add a 0 to the fine. Get caught once it's $100, twice it's $1,000, third time it's $10,000 per worker. It shouldn't take long for the jobs to dry up. That would be way more effective than a wall and would probably result in a net cash inflow rather than an expense after you take into account the fines. It won't stop everyone but it will stop the majority and free up man power to actually track down illegals who commits crimes other than the initial crime of just being here illegally. Nobody wants to propose this though because Democrats don't have a huge problem with illegal immigration because of their liberal tolerance and the fact that the children of these illegals will likely grow up to vote Democrat. Republicans don't want it because they make money hand over first by exploiting the cheap labor and in exchange for these illegal profit windfalls they contribute money to the GOP candidates (as well as the Democratic ones to hedge their bets).

I called it ice sweeping since only one person slides the stone and the rest are pushing brooms but you are correct. I imagine they have their own block of channels like we do for NFL Sunday ticket.

Not his worst comments by any stretch, even when it comes to offending the military. For those I'll go with him equating his "hard work" with the sacrifice of soldiers and their families or the whole I like soldiers who didn't get captured for two examples off the top of my head. I'm sure he promises to carry multiple cell phones though and in the end that's all that really matters when voting for President.

I'm on board with a bridge deal or an 8 year deal, nothing in between though. As for developing a 2 way game, I'm not sure what you mean. At 21 the guy has already scored 41 points so I think he has the offensive part covered plus he's already on our top pair having to defend against the Ovechkin's and the Crosby's of the NHL and he's holding his own (crappy fancy stats acknowledged). I imagine an 8 year deal would cost around $6-7.5 million per season. Even if he never blossoms into a true stud, there's a good chance he'll still be holding down the fort on our top pairing. So how much does a non stud top pair defender usually make? Maybe something in the $5 million range (I'm honestly not sure). That would put him as overpaid by $2 million which Toronto, Chicago, and other teams have shown it's not that hard to move if you're motivated to do so. Front load the contract as much as possible within the guidelines of the CBA and you'll also be able to entice the lower budget teams of the NHL to take him because they seem to love grabbing players whose actually pay is lower than their cap hit. And all of that is only necessary if our worst fears come true and Pi is actually right about him (chills).

Yes, there's less risk with a 5 or 6 year deal now, but if he pans out (like most of us and GMTM seem to be expecting him to) then he's got us over a barrel for his next contract. Imagine a 25 year old pending UFA who has been anchoring the top pair of a (hopefully) contending team. The guy will be able to name his price and by then we'll be up against the cap limit since I imagine Eichel and Reinhart will be in the middle of their long term big money deals. We'll be forced to watch him walk for top money from another team or we'll be in Chicago's position (possibly without the cups) of giving top money to a handful of guys and having to fill 1/2 to 2/3 of the roster with ELCs and bargain bin veterans.

But if we lock him up now there's the opportunity to have a top notch defender for below market rates through his entire 20's. That's why I'm on board for 8 years and if they can't work that out I'd prefer 3. The main question is would you rather overpay him now or overpay him later by having to resign him long term in his prime after a shorter contract now. Right now we have the funds because two of our best players are on ELC in Eichel and Reinhart. I'd rather overpay now and lock him up than possibly risk losing him when he's 25 or 26 or having to pony up big money then and risk over paying him when he's past his prime at the end of his long term deal (8 year deal signed at 26 would put him at 34 at the end of it).

Seems like another controversy. Kind of like the 200,000 plus people who claim to have been at the Comeback game even though the game wasn't sold out and the stadium capacity is only something like 70,000. Just for the record though even though I was born in 1981 so I obviously wasn't there, I imagine the game was shown live on Canadian TV because it's hockey and that's what I imagine Canadian TV plays (nothing but ice hockey, moose wrangling, and maple syrup chugging contests, right?). Maybe a fashion channel or two where they debate the merits of flannel vs the Canadian tuxedo of blue jeans with a jean jacket, complete with a Rush patch sewn on the back.

Does he also write off whatever he pays you to wash his balls or is it pro bono work? Business losses make him more than just a Patriot, I'd say he's a hero. Move over fallen soldiers we have a better example of sacrifice.

Fair enough. I've accidentally mistaken you for some others you caucus with. My mistake. For the record I think we'd have many similar views on reforming the tax code. I'd love to simplify it dramatically with very few deductions (medical expenses, mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and green energy). I imagine we'd differ on some other things though. For one I would make the capital gain rates the same as the rates people pay on earned income and I'd reinstate the estate tax because really rich people who die are a perfect person to tax in my opinion. Companies would face tax penalties for offshoring jobs and get tax breaks for creating jobs in the US. While not tax policy I'd also go after companies that hire illegals rather than going after illegals themselves and I'd go after companies who price gouge or collude to promote healthy and fair competiton instead of the illusion of competition that exists now. Jack up the price of epipens and lose your patent and watch as other businesses use your technology to offer it at a reasonable price. National cable providers who collude by carving up the country by region will lose the ability to offer channel tiers and be forced to offer them a la carte so people have the option to only buy the 9 channels they actually watch instead of old cat lady's having to pay for ESPN and Comedy Central in order to get reruns of Murder She Wrote and people like me having to pay for the Home Shopping Network, MTV, and Lifetime in order to get NBC Sports. Carrot or stick style.

You are. Unless I'm completely mistaken and you've never said anything negative about people who legally take advantage of the welfare system then you have a double standard. I'm not talking about fraud either. When I say gaming the system I mean taking advantage of legal loopholes not committing fraud. In Trump's case his team of lawyers and accountants find rules and regulations that allow him to make millions while paying no taxes and you applaud him. In the other case someone legally qualifies for subsidies by having a low income or someone legally collects unemployment by exploiting a loophole by applying for jobs specifically with companies who aren't hiring to meet actively seeking employment requirements. They are all gaming the system legally, yet in right wing circles one is celebrated and the other is villified.

But why is gaming the system legally in one instance something to be proud of and legally gaming the system in the other instance frowned upon?

I didn't say you said it wasn't legal, I said you've frowned on it in the past and made comments about them needing to improve their jobs skills to improve their situations. That makes me conclude that you applaud legally gaming the system to avoid taxes like it's some virtue but legally gaming the system to get freebies should be frowned upon. I think they should be treated the same way whether you are in favor of both or against both at least be consistent.

What arm flailing? You seem to have 2 standards. The rich are applauded for following the letter of the law by only paying any taxes they are unable to legally escape and the poor are wrong when they use the law to get government freebies.

Great non response. How insightful.

I love the irony. Poor people have to make an earnest effort to meet their burdens while rich people can use every tool at their disposal, fair or otherwise to shirk theirs. Makes perfect sense. Close a factory in Ohio and move it to India, fire thousands of people and avoid taxes while writing off moving expenses to help avoid any tax burden through those losses. Smart business decision. The laid off worker from the closed business better try earnestly to find another job though because we don't need those loafers sucking off the public dole. Let me guess, the real issue is global trade, government regulations, and some other pro business propaganda nonsense, right? If only those noble business owners could pay the workers in the US dirt wages with poor safety conditions they wouldn't have to move the factory to begin with.

I love how it's all about following the code and the letter of the law when it comes to the rich shirking their tax burdens yet when it's a poor person applying for welfare or somebody working a minimum wage job who qualifies for subsidies based on low income that it's a problem for that poor person and the onus should be on them for improving their job skills. If I got fired on Monday should I put in for unemployment and then only apply for jobs at companies who aren't hiring in order to collect unemployment for as long as possible? I'm following the letter of the law at that point. What say you, Neo?

Just saying that he seems awfully generous for somebody who doesn't seem to have any skin in the game (other peoples' money). I thought Conservatives hated that.

Fair point, although the tax code has been rigged since long before Hillary was ever sworn in as a Senator. She didn't exactly do much to stop it which is one of the reasons I don't care for her as a candidate. In a choice between the guy with his hand in the cookie jar and the person leaving the cookie jar unattended, I'm siding with the person looking the other way. Yay team (for Claude).

Based on his track record though, would you be more worried or have the same level of caution that you have from the average customer? As for the tax thing I get your stance. Without seeing his returns I'd venture to guess he used every available loophole lobbied into the tax code to pay as little money as legally possible. It may be the smart thing to do but that doesn't make it fair when a garbage man making 40 or 50 grand a year pays more than a guy making millions. I'd still like to point out that one of his campaign talking points is consistently railing about how crippled and underfunded our military is and how the way we treat veterans is disgraceful. If he is paying no taxes isn't that an example of telling people how their tax dollars should be spent? I seem to remember conservatives getting up in arms when people try to tell them how to spend their money.

If you found out your company was entering into business with him would you be excited or would you be wary that he might skip out on the bill causing financial damage to your employer?

I never said he doesn't add value, I said he's a hypocrite. He's got at least a half dozen posts about pom poms and yay team nonsense while doing the same thing he's accusing the rest of us of doing. He's got a lot of well thought out reasoned posts as well, but I'm still gonna say my piece on it when i see fit. You're crazy, man. George Carlin's corpse would have cleaned up Washington and Ash Williams will save the world from Deadites and the country from ruin. Plus he looks like Mitt Romney from the waste up and Barack Obama from the waste down. He says so himself in his political ads and nobody lies on those things, do they? http://www.ash4president.com/

I don't need your "help" and I have been reading your posts along with everyone elses from today and every other day. I get that your support for Gary Johnson isn't really for him, it's for an eventual end to the dominance of the two party system. I've been there too. I'm 35 years old and I've been eligible to vote for President 4 times so far. I voted for George W Bush in 2000 (huge mistake), George Carlin as a write in candidate in 2004, George Carlin's corpse in 2008, and Obama in 2012. It doesn't change the fact that you constantly make snide comments about pom poms and people being cheerleaders for the lesser of two evils when you are doing the exact same thing. You are casting a vote for someone who you admit isn't qualified for the job. Just because he isn't an R or a D doesn't mean you aren't doing the same thing you accuse everyone else of doing. Minimzing the faults of your collective side and justifying it by villifying the other sides. I don't even care who you vote for though and there's still a 50/50 chance I'll be writing in Ash Williams (a fictional character based on 3 awesome movies and the best damn tv show ever made) on my ballot depending on how close the race looks in NC here in November. I just get annoyed by your constant high horse mentality about all the rest of us being partisan. You are just as partisan as the rest of us, you just happen to root for an expansion team that hasn't won anything yet.

Just because you don't like your own hypocrisy thrown in your face doesn't mean there's anything wrong with my reading comprehension. Demonize the other sides. Convince yourself that 3rd party is the greater good even though your guy has less knowledge than the average poster is this thread (right or left). A cult of a different god is still a cult.

Says the guy who supports a candidate for President who can't name a single world leader he likes. You're so "non partisan" that you're basically doing the exact thing that you accuse everyone else of doing. Retreat to your corner and defend the 3rd team though, while looking down your nose at the rest of us. I'm sure he's the lessor of 3 evils with his 0% corporate tax platform. I'd rather have Trump than that idiot.