The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-20-2023 10:02 AM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 07:26 AM)Doo Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 01:19 PM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 11:48 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 11:33 AM)Doo Wrote:  Just as I said with infrastructure, neither party really wants to solve the problem, wanting it for talking points is worth more to them. Republicans want to do enough to make you think they want to clean up immigration.

100%

Been this way for decades. Both sides campaign on fixing infrastructure, and both sides agree it needs to be done, but then both sides vote against it when legislation is proposed (often at the committee level so a bill never even hits the floor).

So, are we just going to pretend like a $1.2T infrastructure bill wasn't passed last year with support of all Democrats in the House & Senate? Even had support from 18 GOP Senators.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/04/politics/...index.html

The vast majority of that bill has nothing to do with traditional infrastructure. You slap the name on it, and get a bunch of other stuff through when nobody reads the fine print. This bill is a drop in the bucket to actual infrastructure needs. It's akin to Republicans building a wall that stretches a couple dozen miles along the border and claiming a victory.

It's all the same.

Infrastructure is obviously a longterm investment that will take decades to fix. This was a good start. Your claim that the bill has nothing to do with traditional infrastructure is false. They’ve already approved $185B in road/bridges/rail projects.

Do you think it was more or less effective than Trump’s Infrastructure week where he sat in a fire truck and honked the horn?

I didn't say it has nothing to do with traditional infrastructure. I stated the vast majority of the bill has nothing to do with traditional infrastructure....which is clearly true.

(01-20-2023 10:36 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  I can't speak for other states, but here in Michigan we have more funding for roads than can even be used right now, thanks to infrastructure packages at the state and federal level. Because of labor shortages and the sheer number of current jobs that MDOT and construction companies are working on, they are at capacity. Sometimes jobs will get posted and won't receive a single bid, because the contractors literally CAN'T take on more work. They don't have the people or resources. So it's not always as simple as throwing more money at the problem.

Then you have to look at what the money is being spent on, mostly repaving and improving existing roads, rebuilding bridges, etc...which is great. But it also perpetuates our current automobile-focused infrastructure. Car culture. Because of major infrastructure investment between the 30s and the 60s, combined with the urban sprawl that was happening, it requires SO MUCH money just to maintain what we already have. We overbuilt, overextended ourselves. Some R&D is happening in the state, looking at changes necessary for electric vehicles as well as investment in commuter rail and various forms of public transport like that. But the vast majority goes to repairing existing infrastructure rather than pivoting to better solutions. But that's a separate issue. The point is, infrastructure IS a focus here in Michigan at least.

Michigan's pot of money for road improvement is an entirely separate issue because most of that money has come from state level bonding programs, and not federal dollars.

What I don't get, and maybe I'm missing something, is when Republicans blame Biden for immigrants going to extreme, dangerous lengths to try to enter the US. The more difficult it is to get into the US, the more that is going to happen. And it's the Republicans who are always saying they need to stop immigrants from coming in. They're the ones trying to build walls and prevent anyone from getting in.

And still waiting for the check from Mexico.

(01-20-2023 11:22 AM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 10:17 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 07:26 AM)Doo Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 01:19 PM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 11:48 AM)moe24 Wrote:  100%

Been this way for decades. Both sides campaign on fixing infrastructure, and both sides agree it needs to be done, but then both sides vote against it when legislation is proposed (often at the committee level so a bill never even hits the floor).

So, are we just going to pretend like a $1.2T infrastructure bill wasn't passed last year with support of all Democrats in the House & Senate? Even had support from 18 GOP Senators.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/04/politics/...index.html

The vast majority of that bill has nothing to do with traditional infrastructure. You slap the name on it, and get a bunch of other stuff through when nobody reads the fine print. This bill is a drop in the bucket to actual infrastructure needs. It's akin to Republicans building a wall that stretches a couple dozen miles along the border and claiming a victory.

It's all the same.

Trying to claim that bill has little to do with "traditional infrastructure" is just as ignorantly disingenuous as try to claim that one bill alone undoes decades of politicians on both sides of the aisle kicking the issue down the road.

We seem to be having two different conversations here.

If you want to have a both sides conversation about politicians 20 years ago, I would agree there is some validity to that. Both sides played the game. Both sides failed to live up to campaign promises. Both sides stayed within some reasonable guard rails.

But, I started talking politics on this site when one side stopped accepting election results & led insurrections at the Capitol. I have no use for the both sides argument when we are comparing a ~2020 Republican to a ~2020 Democrat.

If you want to contrast the Republicans' current infrastructure plan to what the Dems passed last year and claim there is no difference, let's hear it.

At least you're honest that your positions are based less on the actual practices of elected officials, and more on your emotional feeling towards one party. I hate when people mix the two and claim not to. I appreciate your honesty.

(01-20-2023 11:27 AM)Doo Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 11:22 AM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 10:17 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 07:26 AM)Doo Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 01:19 PM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  So, are we just going to pretend like a $1.2T infrastructure bill wasn't passed last year with support of all Democrats in the House & Senate? Even had support from 18 GOP Senators.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/04/politics/...index.html

The vast majority of that bill has nothing to do with traditional infrastructure. You slap the name on it, and get a bunch of other stuff through when nobody reads the fine print. This bill is a drop in the bucket to actual infrastructure needs. It's akin to Republicans building a wall that stretches a couple dozen miles along the border and claiming a victory.

It's all the same.

Trying to claim that bill has little to do with "traditional infrastructure" is just as ignorantly disingenuous as try to claim that one bill alone undoes decades of politicians on both sides of the aisle kicking the issue down the road.

We seem to be having two different conversations here.

If you want to have a both sides conversation about politicians 20 years ago, I would agree there is some validity to that. Both sides played the game. Both sides failed to live up to campaign promises. Both sides stayed within some reasonable guard rails.

But, I started talking politics on this site when one side stopped accepting election results & led insurrections at the Capitol. I have no use for the both sides argument when we are comparing a ~2020 Republican to a ~2020 Democrat.

If you want to contrast the Republicans' current infrastructure plan to what the Dems passed last year and claim there is no difference, let's hear it.

At least you're honest that your positions are based less on the actual practices of elected officials, and more on your emotional feeling towards one party. I hate when people mix the two and claim not to. I appreciate your honesty.

Give me a break.

So, what are you? A well reasoned unemotional person who accepts Insurrections at the Capitol?

Typical response from a MAGA. Come back with no actual refute to my argument and just say I'm too emotional. Entitled white males in power have relied on this lazy trope for years.

(01-20-2023 11:25 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  What I don't get, and maybe I'm missing something, is when Republicans blame Biden for immigrants going to extreme, dangerous lengths to try to enter the US. The more difficult it is to get into the US, the more that is going to happen. And it's the Republicans who are always saying they need to stop immigrants from coming in. They're the ones trying to build walls and prevent anyone from getting in.

And still waiting for the check from Mexico.

It's all theatre.

(01-20-2023 10:44 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  As far as immigration, I dunno...We are all the products of immigration in this country, back when it was much easier to come here. We used to welcome people with open arms, but it's so much more difficult to move here legally now. That is unless you are extraordinarily wealthy or have a particular talent/skill that is desired, such as athletes, doctors, scientists, etc..

We really need immigration reform to allow people that want to be Americans and want to experience the "American Dream" to have that opportunity. People aren't illegally crossing the southern border because they want to hurt us and destroy our country. They come here because this is the land of opportunity. A safe haven. Sanctuary. I still believe in that status and I still believe in welcoming anyone that wants to come be an American. Let's cut the red tape and make that process easier so people aren't forced to do so illegally.

There you go being logical and rational about immigration. Didn't you know you're supposed to approach this from a hyper-partisan perspective and find a "them" to hate?

(01-20-2023 11:28 AM)Doo Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 11:25 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  What I don't get, and maybe I'm missing something, is when Republicans blame Biden for immigrants going to extreme, dangerous lengths to try to enter the US. The more difficult it is to get into the US, the more that is going to happen. And it's the Republicans who are always saying they need to stop immigrants from coming in. They're the ones trying to build walls and prevent anyone from getting in.

And still waiting for the check from Mexico.

It's all theatre.

It probably is, but it definitely hurts their credibility when they claim stuff like that, since it's so ridiculous.

Going by a 2018 Gallup Poll article, Worldwide about 158 million adults would like to immigrate to the US. US takes in about 1/5 of the World's immigrants.

(01-20-2023 11:28 AM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 11:27 AM)Doo Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 11:22 AM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 10:17 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 07:26 AM)Doo Wrote:  The vast majority of that bill has nothing to do with traditional infrastructure. You slap the name on it, and get a bunch of other stuff through when nobody reads the fine print. This bill is a drop in the bucket to actual infrastructure needs. It's akin to Republicans building a wall that stretches a couple dozen miles along the border and claiming a victory.

It's all the same.

Trying to claim that bill has little to do with "traditional infrastructure" is just as ignorantly disingenuous as try to claim that one bill alone undoes decades of politicians on both sides of the aisle kicking the issue down the road.

We seem to be having two different conversations here.

If you want to have a both sides conversation about politicians 20 years ago, I would agree there is some validity to that. Both sides played the game. Both sides failed to live up to campaign promises. Both sides stayed within some reasonable guard rails.

But, I started talking politics on this site when one side stopped accepting election results & led insurrections at the Capitol. I have no use for the both sides argument when we are comparing a ~2020 Republican to a ~2020 Democrat.

If you want to contrast the Republicans' current infrastructure plan to what the Dems passed last year and claim there is no difference, let's hear it.

At least you're honest that your positions are based less on the actual practices of elected officials, and more on your emotional feeling towards one party. I hate when people mix the two and claim not to. I appreciate your honesty.

Give me a break.

So, what are you? A well reasoned unemotional person who accepts Insurrections at the Capitol?

Typical response from a MAGA. Come back with no actual refute to my argument and just say I'm too emotional. Entitled white males in power have relied on this lazy trope for years.

Compliments met with insults. Disappointing. I'm not jumping in the mud with you. Have a great weekend.

(01-20-2023 02:17 PM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Going by a 2018 Gallup Poll article, Worldwide about 158 million adults would like to immigrate to the US. US takes in about 1/5 of the World's immigrants.

I guess the question has always been - what's the right number? I read that Trump reduced the allowed number of legal immigrants, though I never confirmed that or looked to see what that number was. Obviously the US can use a decent number given declining birth rates, and of course our relatively low population density. And I don't think you're going to stop people from getting in illegally.

https://youtu.be/G6lxpt8lzbo

(01-20-2023 02:42 PM)Doo Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 11:28 AM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 11:27 AM)Doo Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 11:22 AM)BroncoMinor Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 10:17 AM)moe24 Wrote:  Trying to claim that bill has little to do with "traditional infrastructure" is just as ignorantly disingenuous as try to claim that one bill alone undoes decades of politicians on both sides of the aisle kicking the issue down the road.

We seem to be having two different conversations here.

If you want to have a both sides conversation about politicians 20 years ago, I would agree there is some validity to that. Both sides played the game. Both sides failed to live up to campaign promises. Both sides stayed within some reasonable guard rails.

But, I started talking politics on this site when one side stopped accepting election results & led insurrections at the Capitol. I have no use for the both sides argument when we are comparing a ~2020 Republican to a ~2020 Democrat.

If you want to contrast the Republicans' current infrastructure plan to what the Dems passed last year and claim there is no difference, let's hear it.

At least you're honest that your positions are based less on the actual practices of elected officials, and more on your emotional feeling towards one party. I hate when people mix the two and claim not to. I appreciate your honesty.

Give me a break.

So, what are you? A well reasoned unemotional person who accepts Insurrections at the Capitol?

Typical response from a MAGA. Come back with no actual refute to my argument and just say I'm too emotional. Entitled white males in power have relied on this lazy trope for years.

Compliments met with insults. Disappointing. I'm not jumping in the mud with you. Have a great weekend.

Not sure how I'm supposed to take what you said as a complement. But, I will apologize for firing back so much. We've had a lot of respectful chats about hockey, so I don't want to let our politics get in the way of that. We're all Broncos. My apologies. I hope you have a good weekend as well.

(01-20-2023 11:35 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 10:44 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  As far as immigration, I dunno...We are all the products of immigration in this country, back when it was much easier to come here. We used to welcome people with open arms, but it's so much more difficult to move here legally now. That is unless you are extraordinarily wealthy or have a particular talent/skill that is desired, such as athletes, doctors, scientists, etc..

We really need immigration reform to allow people that want to be Americans and want to experience the "American Dream" to have that opportunity. People aren't illegally crossing the southern border because they want to hurt us and destroy our country. They come here because this is the land of opportunity. A safe haven. Sanctuary. I still believe in that status and I still believe in welcoming anyone that wants to come be an American. Let's cut the red tape and make that process easier so people aren't forced to do so illegally.

There you go being logical and rational about immigration. Didn't you know you're supposed to approach this from a hyper-partisan perspective and find a "them" to hate?

Also need it because Boomers are retiring and unless we plan on changing our economy we need immigrants unless you like the service/retail/restaurant industry to be constantly understaffed like the last two years.

(01-20-2023 07:26 PM)bronconick Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 11:35 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 10:44 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  As far as immigration, I dunno...We are all the products of immigration in this country, back when it was much easier to come here. We used to welcome people with open arms, but it's so much more difficult to move here legally now. That is unless you are extraordinarily wealthy or have a particular talent/skill that is desired, such as athletes, doctors, scientists, etc..

We really need immigration reform to allow people that want to be Americans and want to experience the "American Dream" to have that opportunity. People aren't illegally crossing the southern border because they want to hurt us and destroy our country. They come here because this is the land of opportunity. A safe haven. Sanctuary. I still believe in that status and I still believe in welcoming anyone that wants to come be an American. Let's cut the red tape and make that process easier so people aren't forced to do so illegally.

There you go being logical and rational about immigration. Didn't you know you're supposed to approach this from a hyper-partisan perspective and find a "them" to hate?

Also need it because Boomers are retiring and unless we plan on changing our economy we need immigrants unless you like the service/retail/restaurant industry to be constantly understaffed like the last two years.

Don't worry people are working on that.

(01-20-2023 03:51 PM)AllBronco Wrote:  https://youtu.be/G6lxpt8lzbo

Give us your tired and weak and we will make them strong
Bring us your foreign songs and we will sing along
Leave us your broken dreams we'll give them to mend
There's still a lot of love living in the promiseland
Living in the promiseland
Our dreams are made of steel
The prayer of every man is to know how freedom feels
There is a winding road across the shifting sand
And room for everyone living in the promiseland
So they came from a distant isle
Nameless woman, faitheless child like a bad dream
Until there was no room at all
No place to run and no place to fall
Give us our daily bread
We have no shoes to wear
No place to call our home
Only this cross to bear
We are the multitudes
Lend us a helping hand
Is there no love anymore
Living in the promiseland
Living in the promiseland
Our dreams are made of steel
The prayer of every man is to know how freedom feels
There is a winding road across the shifting sand
And room for everyone living in the promiseland

Transatlantic vessels drew too much water to land at Ellis Island. Passengers with passports would be let off in Manhattan and the steerage passengers would be ferried over to Ellis Island for processing. Immigration officials would take $1 and $2 bribes to release immigrants directly into Manhattan without being processed.

Dear Boca Rocket,
There was no need of passport or other legal documents to enter America from Ellis Island in the early 1900's.

(01-25-2023 01:55 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Boca Rocket,
There was no need of passport or other legal documents to enter America from Ellis Island in the early 1900's.

Still a 3-7 hour process that not all passengers would have to forego. Unescorted women, children would detained(considered a financial burden). Also the sick, criminals, stowaway, etc. For US citizens traveling abroad and returning they were recommended starting just before WW1.
Applications for passports dated back to 1790's.