(10-24-2021 06:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 06:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 06:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 06:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-24-2021 03:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don’t think it would help to specify legal or illegal - not once has illegal immigration been offered up as a solution and I’ve always been talking about visa holders. That is an issue in your head only in this back and forth between me and you.

I don’t find it hard to believe the last paragraph when the data provided clearly shows that immigration is down across the board (these are numbers for legal immigrants entering the US).

You, personally, may have only meant LEGAL immigration when talking about the impact of immigration on the inability of some certain American businesses to find workers, as in the J-1 visas you talked about.

BUT...your team, the Blue team, nearly always talks about immigration without distinguishing between legal and illegal, and about immigrants without distinguishing between legal and illegal. Apparently to the majority of the Blue team, the uneducated and illiterate wader across the Rio Grande is exactly the same as the J-1 guy. When your team learns, and specifies, the difference, I will stop thinking that any mention by a Blue team member of immigration includes illegals. But until then, you will have to be specific.

I don't see more illegals as the answer to the needs of Sonic and Target, which is what I was talking about.

But you aren’t having a conversation with “the Blue team,” so don’t worry what you think they say when we are the ones talking.

But you are part of the Blue team. In fact, without researching every post you haver made the last 5 years, I bet you have made references to to "immigration" and "immigrants" that do not distinguish legal from illegal.

Go back and look - let me know what you find.

Each of us on here have their own opinions and views that sometimes align with “their team,” and sometimes don’t. But given that I haven’t made any post indicating I’m talking about illegal immigration - in fact I’ve only clearly focused on legal immigration - it is only a tad bit insulting that you can’t distinguish my comments from what you think “Blue team” says.

Quote:After Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina dumped more than $1.6 million in stocks in February 2020 a week before the coronavirus market crash, he called his brother-in-law, according to a new Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

They talked for 50 seconds.

Burr, according to the SEC, had material nonpublic information regarding the incoming economic impact of coronavirus.

The very next minute, Burr’s brother-in-law, Gerald Fauth, called his broker.

ProPublica previously reported that Fauth, a member of the National Mediation Board, had dumped stock the same day Burr did. But it was previously unknown that Burr and Fauth spoke that day, and that their contact came just before Fauth began the process of dumping stock himself.

(10-28-2021 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Who knows, maybe the bill being proposed in Congress to ban members of Congress from buying/selling stocks will actually pass.

News broke that all but proves Senator Burr used his inside position with respect to COVID developments to profit personally, and help his family profit too.

Quote:After Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina dumped more than $1.6 million in stocks in February 2020 a week before the coronavirus market crash, he called his brother-in-law, according to a new Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

They talked for 50 seconds.

Burr, according to the SEC, had material nonpublic information regarding the incoming economic impact of coronavirus.

The very next minute, Burr’s brother-in-law, Gerald Fauth, called his broker.

ProPublica previously reported that Fauth, a member of the National Mediation Board, had dumped stock the same day Burr did. But it was previously unknown that Burr and Fauth spoke that day, and that their contact came just before Fauth began the process of dumping stock himself.

https://www.propublica.org/article/burrs-brother-in-law-called-stock-broker-one-minute-after-getting-off-phone-with-senator

(10-28-2021 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2021 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Who knows, maybe the bill being proposed in Congress to ban members of Congress from buying/selling stocks will actually pass.

News broke that all but proves Senator Burr used his inside position with respect to COVID developments to profit personally, and help his family profit too.

Quote:After Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina dumped more than $1.6 million in stocks in February 2020 a week before the coronavirus market crash, he called his brother-in-law, according to a new Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

They talked for 50 seconds.

Burr, according to the SEC, had material nonpublic information regarding the incoming economic impact of coronavirus.

The very next minute, Burr’s brother-in-law, Gerald Fauth, called his broker.

ProPublica previously reported that Fauth, a member of the National Mediation Board, had dumped stock the same day Burr did. But it was previously unknown that Burr and Fauth spoke that day, and that their contact came just before Fauth began the process of dumping stock himself.

https://www.propublica.org/article/burrs-brother-in-law-called-stock-broker-one-minute-after-getting-off-phone-with-senator

Lots of people have used their "lifetime of service" to get rich. Like most other things political, it is generally the same in both parties.

Maybe a law requiring blind trusts for all members of congress would help. One limited to buying/selling stocks would not have touched Trump, for example, whose wealth was in Real Estate.

And I don't see how these laws would control things like the houses given the Clinton's, or the Hunter Biden art sales. RE: art -you can buy a signed Picasso cheaper than a Hunter Biden. And Picasso is dead.

People in positions of power are wont to misuse it.

(10-28-2021 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Weird response…

Quote:Yep, both sides have abused positions of power. Why did that need to be clarified?

Quote:So the proposed bill doesn’t go far enough in your opinion? I’m all for a blind trust requirement - but I’ll take this as a step in the right direction to reduce how people abuse their positions of power and influence.

Quote:I don’t think this law is meant to control what is essentially money laundering in art.

Quote: Does that impact whether you think this is a step in the right direction?

(10-28-2021 06:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2021 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Weird response…

Not at all

Quote:Yep, both sides have abused positions of power. Why did that need to be clarified?

Your post was about a Republican. All too often in these Red/Blue wars we get one-sided commentary. For example, the current reporting about the Texas redistricting when both sides gerrymander when and where they can.

Quote:So the proposed bill doesn’t go far enough in your opinion? I’m all for a blind trust requirement - but I’ll take this as a step in the right direction to reduce how people abuse their positions of power and influence.

A teeny, tiny step. Pretty ineffectual, IMO.

Quote:I don’t think this law is meant to control what is essentially money laundering in art.

Part of the problem. I wonder what the leftist press would have thought of auctions of Ivanka's art for outlandish prices?

Quote: Does that impact whether you think this is a step in the right direction?

Already answered in this post.

(10-28-2021 08:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2021 06:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2021 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Weird response…

Not at all

Quote:Yep, both sides have abused positions of power. Why did that need to be clarified?

Your post was about a Republican. All too often in these Red/Blue wars we get one-sided commentary. For example, the current reporting about the Texas redistricting when both sides gerrymander when and where they can.

Quote:So the proposed bill doesn’t go far enough in your opinion? I’m all for a blind trust requirement - but I’ll take this as a step in the right direction to reduce how people abuse their positions of power and influence.

A teeny, tiny step. Pretty ineffectual, IMO.

Quote:I don’t think this law is meant to control what is essentially money laundering in art.

Part of the problem. I wonder what the leftist press would have thought of auctions of Ivanka's art for outlandish prices?

Quote: Does that impact whether you think this is a step in the right direction?

Already answered in this post.

You’re the one that made it red/blue. I started the post generically, about legislation that is moving through Congress that would impact all of Congress. The article I posted happened to be about a Republican, but I didn’t highlight that or draw any broader conclusions. Both sides have taken advantage of what amounts to insider trading.

(10-29-2021 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hot take alert:

Ted Cruz is truly a great defender of the 1st Amendment. He staunchly defends acts he may find deplorable, like giving a Nazi salute or kneeling during the national anthem, because he believes strongly in the 1st Amendment, regardless of political backlash.

(10-29-2021 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But shallowly it is seemingly promoted as 'Cruz defends Nazi salutes'

(10-29-2021 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hot take alert:

Ted Cruz is truly a great defender of the 1st Amendment. He staunchly defends acts he may find deplorable, like giving a Nazi salute or kneeling during the national anthem, because he believes strongly in the 1st Amendment, regardless of political backlash.

(10-29-2021 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, the above, among other criticisms, dont seem to uinderstand that that Nazi salutes given by the parents are, in fact, done so in a way to sarcastically mock the school boards.

(10-29-2021 10:45 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, the above, among other criticisms, dont seem to uinderstand that that Nazi salutes given by the parents are, in fact, done so in a way to sarcastically mock the school boards.

I learned on this board that, as far as "progressives" are concerned, mocking "progressives" is not allowed.

(10-29-2021 10:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hot take alert:

Ted Cruz is truly a great defender of the 1st Amendment. He staunchly defends acts he may find deplorable, like giving a Nazi salute or kneeling during the national anthem, because he believes strongly in the 1st Amendment, regardless of political backlash.

Perhaps you need to actually go into the background. Again, this goes back to the NSBA letter that we are talking about earlier.

That NSBA letter cited parents giving Nazi salutes to school board members as a threat of violence.

And he noted that the action is protected by the First Amendment. An funnily, Garland agreed.

Cruz: "General Garland, is doing a Nazi salute at an elected official, is that protected by the First Amendment?"

Garland: "Yes, it is,".

And, the above, among other criticisms, dont seem to uinderstand that that Nazi salutes given by the parents are, in fact, done so in a way to sarcastically mock the school boards. Oh, but watch everyone forget that little nugget of backstory.

But shallowly it is seemingly promoted as 'Cruz defends Nazi salutes'

Sometimes the backstory is somewhat important lad. Lad, at least be honest with the backstory on this one.

(10-29-2021 10:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hot take alert:

Ted Cruz is truly a great defender of the 1st Amendment. He staunchly defends acts he may find deplorable, like giving a Nazi salute or kneeling during the national anthem, because he believes strongly in the 1st Amendment, regardless of political backlash.

My view: people who believe that one or more or those should be prosecuted are scum. Most such people are "progressives".

(10-29-2021 01:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 10:44 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hot take alert:

Ted Cruz is truly a great defender of the 1st Amendment. He staunchly defends acts he may find deplorable, like giving a Nazi salute or kneeling during the national anthem, because he believes strongly in the 1st Amendment, regardless of political backlash.

My view: people who believe that one or more or those should be prosecuted are scum. Most such people are "progressives".

I agree with the former. My issue with Cruz is him playing politics. He didn’t offer the same defense of athletes protesting in a different way he also found offensive.