htownbrown

"Welcome to the Cleveland Clinic Mr. Hurst."

This is like paying $250,000 for a New Kids on the Block CD.

3 hours ago, Orion said:

Yup.  The league did a great job of setting this up.  Make his return happen in Houston.  Brilliant.  The Texans will probably have the women march out onto the field for the national anthem. 

They should've kept him out for the whole season.  It would've given time for it to blow over and not cost the Browns a year of his contract, for basically nothing.  But, obviously, they wanted to screw the Browns too for trading for him and making his 1st contract year be worth 1 mil.    They wanted to make it as awkward as possible for Watson, the Browns, and by extension, us.  So, ya know what?  I hope the Browns win by 40!  

"And here to perform the national anthem, Tony and the Accusers"

Not sure if they can sing, but we know they can hum.

47 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

IIIRAIRA is part of the problem, the system is crap. They could make E-verify mandatory, but they won't. It isn't going to be fixed, because it is just a great talking point and cheap labor is cheap. 

 

Specifically to the video, IIRAIRA has no bearing on length of stay.  I don't know what other issues you have with it.  And also, E-verify doesn't stop any illegal immigration other than it makes it more "legal" to be here undocumented, I suppose.

But I can't really argue the rest of your post.

22 hours ago, cccjwh said:

 

 

There's no way you believe that.  IIRAIRA has zero bearing on rising extended stay illegal immigration.  The problem is how networked these migrants are nowadays because the amount of established undocumented friends and family they already have living here.  The pioneering phase of illegal immigration is over, there are jobs, housing, schooling, health care, etc. already in place for these people.  It's far more advanced than the 90s.

In Houston, we have the Gold Card program ( https://houstoncasemanagers.com/gold-card-requirements/#Harris_Health_Gold_Card_Requirements_Who_Qualifies_For_This_Safety_Net_Insurance_Plan ).  There are 3 requirements to enter the Gold Card program, and they are very specific:  uninsured....low-income....undocumented immigrant.  The first thing they do when they get here is go to places calling themselves "multi-services".  They do all the erollment documents these people want.  Why wouldn't they come?  This isn't an anecdote, Houston is an epicenter for illegal immigration from networks like these.  

I guess Vox failing to address obvious influences to the problem isn't a lie, so the fact checkers would probably tell me it's safe to swallow, but it's going to be a hard pass for me on this one dawg.

The IIRAIRA policy simply didn't work, it's not the cause of any crisis.  They saw the wave coming, threw out some policy decades too late, and it didn't work.  They share a timeline, the end.

Your going to love this idea I've had for years, though.  We should stop chasing immigration policies that go after poor brown people and start going after the rich, successful, privileged, entitled, and probably white people that live in places like Martha's Vineyard.  If any of these companies (aka...tax cheats) even think about hiring illegal immigrants, we financially punish them heavily.  It's win, win.  The left gets to spend rich people money on dumb shit in the short term and the rest of the low income citizens of this country get more competitive wages.  

If this ever happened, it would probably end illegal immigration entirely and possibly cause some form of an exodus.  This is where life really gets good for the left.  Pollution....down.  Colorado River....higher.  Price/demand of common goods....down in the long run.  Unfilled labor jobs...replaced with more efficient green technologies.  I could go on, but you're a smart enough guy.

20 minutes ago, FairHooker11 said:

Interesting that it was during Clintons last term, for lenders to give easy home loans with adjustable rates to anyone. So easy that the underwriters looked the "other way" regarding income / employment. AND it was BoA that assumed these failed loans by Countrywide and others. (Helped largely by TARP in 2009.) So maybe because the latest Huge bill just passed, and finding that this money has to find a vehicle in which to move, comes this built in time bomb for the next POTUS adm. ? (Ref GW Bush)

That's a possibility 

4 minutes ago, nickers said:

That's RACIST!

I'm less worried about that, than the super subprime mortgages and possible bailout down the line.

Honestly, you could give me $0 down and $0 closing and I still wouldn't want to 'gentrify the trap'.  

If you read closely, the target group seems to be 'undocumented buyers'.

https://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/content/newsroom/press-releases/2022/08/bank-of-america-introduces-community-affordable-loan-solution--t.html

5 minutes ago, FY56 said:

 

What did I tell ya htown? lol

Touche'

1 minute ago, cccjwh said:

 

I'm not sure why you have such a hard time with this. In 2020 GOP candidates shared far less "questionable" sources then the 2022, if that makes you feel better. That by itself show a shift to crazier. Now that Cheetos is re-post qanon is only going to get worse. If they ever create a rightwing fact checking site let me know. 

It's literally the title of the article and your post.  Why wasn't the title "Republicans use more unreliable sources in 2022"?

Just now, FY56 said:

He said creditable, not credible. Two different meanings.

Creditable simply means one deserving credit for something.  His question is stupid.

Ha.  He got me.

7 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

It didn't ask about the subject the person will talking about. I ask how you determine if the person is creditable. What is the most important attribute in determining if they are creditable. 

Ok, I see where your going.

In order to be credible there must be a history of 'trust' or something to that affect.

The problem you have is Wapo specifically states misinformation. The research they cite relates to credible sources.

If I take everything it says at face value, it's still bullshit.

Example, if I have a V6 engine and you have a V8 engine, does that mean you speed more than me?  That's all Wapo needed.

1 minute ago, cccjwh said:

If by faith you mean confidence, then sure. Again, how do you determine if someone you are talking to is creditable? 

 

Well that depends, if you are reporting data, I'd like to see it.  If we're shooting the shit in person, body language and common sense.

1 hour ago, cccjwh said:

No idea how you got that from what I posted. Guessing you are just deflecting. 

"Good fact checkers list past false stories, so you can look it up yourself."

Since that doesn't apply here, it must be faith.

But I got bored and looked it up.  Wapo is the 3rd most reliable news source listed by News Guardian.  How ironic considering the misleading headline.

"If they apologize for mistakes in the information they passed you, then they can gain some creditability back."

We'll be here when you're ready.

37 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

How do you determine if someone you talk to is creditable?

It's past statements they have made. If someone tell you false things in the past, they lose creditability. The more often they do it, less creditable they are. If they apologize for mistakes in the information they passed to you, then they can gain some creditability back. (Well for non-cultists anyways). Good fact checkers list past false stories, so you can look it up yourself. 

What is the alternated to fact checkers? Sorry but I'm not a cultist so "whatever dear leader says" doesn't work for me.

 

Are you roundabout telling us it's faith based?  Nothing is verifiable, which in turn is unreliable.  

55 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

The study was about the candidates. Since there are quite a few election deniers that ran, of course they are sharing misinformation. Anyone who has research the sources posted here by the cultists, would already know they post links to low credibility sources. What is a low credibility source? One that publishes stories they were false and did not correct their mistakes. It doesn't surprise me that you think fact checking is a waste of time. 

So how do I verify this "research" and likewise the "fact checker"?  Do I just assume they're reliable?

4 hours ago, cccjwh said:

Anyone who has ever read this forum already knew this would be the case. GOP loves to make up their own "facts" and their party members don't care if something is true or not. 

Data analysis by two New York University researchers found that more than one-third of Republican candidates' online communications this election cycle contained some form of misinformation, intensifying questions about politicians' role in perpetuating inaccurate or sometimes false narratives in the national political discourse.

The analysis—published by NYU researchers Maggie Macdonald and Megan A. Brown in The Washington Post Monday—found Republicans share misinformation online at substantially higher rates than Democrats, with Republican challengers constituting the majority of the misleading content.

The findings also revealed a sharp increase in misinformation circulating online since the 2016 election of former President Donald Trump, with highly visible GOP candidates like Sarah Palin contributing to some of the highest levels of misinformation of any candidates in the last decade. And those candidates, the paper noted, are winning, raising new questions about their potential impact on the U.S. political system.

Republican candidates are spreading more fake news than just two years ago - The Washington Post

No pay wall Over a Third of Info Shared by GOP Candidates Is Misinformation: Report (newsweek.com)

 

Methods Supplement for ``More and more, Republicans are sharing misinformation, research finds." (csmapnyu.org)

 

Well, the study never referenced the term 'misinformation' a single time, so that should be a red flag to you.  It says on the bottom of the graph you posted: Percentage of links from known unreliable sources shared on Facebook by congressional candidates.  And the sources are determined to be reliable or not by News Guard, of whom I've never heard.  Even if I grant all that to be true, there is no mention of who the unreliable sources are and whether the link(s) posted were actually bullshit.  Technically, Wapo is spreading misinformation in the headline of this very article and, well, so are you now.  I really don't want to check because it's already been a waste of time, but I would bet Wapo is considered a reliable source by News Guard, even as they mention their own research to spread misinformation.  Maybe since this type of shit interests you, you could check that out and let us know.

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

And it is good to see your "holier than thou" "grace us with your wisdom" internet persona transfers over to your political beliefs. Which I guess just makes sense. 

Good to know everyone worse off financially is just there because they made bad decisions.

 

A college degree's value isn't held only in the monetary cost of that degree. Do you think degrees now are worth more than they were back in the day because their cost has greatly outpaced inflation? The value of my degree is only it's cost and not that I worked my ass off for four years to graduate from a top school? A Harvard degree could be free and it still holds value for those that hold it. 

 

If you want to prop up the wealthy and their corporation as our generous gods and that we should be grateful they pay any taxes at all, well, we aren't going to meet anywhere in the middle. Look at any data around the widening wealth gap in the country. Income inequality is a huge issue. I'm saying this as someone on the right side of that gap but I still realize it needs addressed.

I get the feeling you intentionally miss the point.

I totally agree that a degree is worth more than the cost.  Anyone should go to college if they're passionate about a subject and reasonably intelligible.  I don't think anyone here would disagree, it mostly benefits everyone in these scenarios.  I just don't understand why you're making this point because that doesn't make the case for free tuition, which is the point being made.  People work their ass off at their 9 to 5 and don't get rent paid for, their gas to get to work paid for, their car they take to work paid for, etc.  They just work hard and get what they agreed to.  Same should go for anyone who agrees to anything.

I'm not propping up rich people, it's just common sense.  The income inequality gap is completely irrelevant in general, but especially for this topic considering college grads theoretically will benefit from it the most.  I mean who are we to decide where the line is on upward mobility.  That is a dangerous mentality for the stability of economic growth in general.

More recently, you have advocated for the corporations to develop infrastructure for green energy and now college debt.  I don't even have time to go through many of the past topics you've suggested corporations should pay for (i.e. homelessness, racial reparations, etc., etc., etc.)  You realize these aren't state run entities, right?  You are straddling the socialism line to put it politely.

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

Nothing there regarding how I post. Just you

I have no idea what obsession you're talking about. So because large corporations employ people and contribute to the GDP they're exempt from paying their fair share. Go look at any graphs showing income inequality over time and it's clear that's an issue.

I never said anything remotely close to thinking I had some great impact on the world. If you're going to quote me and replt at least stay within the realm of reality. 

I responded to post you made. Don't put words in my mouth and I wouldn't have to reply. 

This isn't any crusade against responsibility. I've paid off$60k+ in loans. I still think the system is broken. I still think those suffering should get relief. I do very well for myself, but I still see the struggle others to through with student loans. 

The people up the chain where I work are in the 7 figures. I'm sure many think a certain way. We're in a not typical industry. Not sure if why any of that has any impact on my opinion here. 

I'm paraphrasing off many of your posts, from many threads, over many years.  I guess you're a victim of your own portfolio, sorry bro.

What is "fair", if you understand your contribution is miniscule compared to companies/corporations that drive this country and quite frankly the world to some degree?  Inequity between the haves and have nots is not necessarily, in itself, nefarious.  Being good with money doesn't require a correction factor to help those that aren't, unless you are a socialist. (Note: I didn't just call you a socialist)

I'm not referring to Woody's personal responsibility, I'm referring to Woody's inability to factor individual responsibility into his ideology on social responsibility.  I'm sure real life Woody isn't as dense as internet Woody with regards to basic communication, but we'll play the cards we're dealt.  I sincerely respect that you paid your loans back early, but if you didn't or couldn't and suggested corporate money should pay for it, then your degree wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.  That's ludicrous to expect such a thing.

The top 1% pays more than the bottom 90% combined in income tax, that's irrefutable.  I understand that doesn't mean they pay the same percentage of income tax as the commoners, which is the elephant in your room.  BUT everyone gets tax breaks if they meet the criteia.  Parents aren't paying their fair share when they get the child tax credit.  Students aren't paying their fair share when they get a loan interest deduction.  Likewise, first time homeowners/homesteaders are tax cheats too apparently, and on and on.  You've isolated corporations because what you want is essentially a 'success' tax, with no exceptions, to compensate for average Joe's lack of successful decisions.  I'm not quoting you, that's a logical deduction from everything you're implying, so spare me the victim schtick for once.  And IF you believe that, it makes Cal roughly 75% right about you.

19 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I've repeatedly, in this thread, mentioned the systemic issue of ballooning college tuition. I know you want to swoop in and drop your patented "hard truth" bombs, but I'd suggest following along first. 

That said, you can still try to provide support for those that are victims of the current system. 

And, still, the even increasing wealth gap is a huge issue in this country. The wealthy in powehsve bought enough ads and politicians to convince the middle class the status quo is best for them I guess. To get us all riled up and angry at each other. While they pass tax cuts and loopholes to protect and grow their fortunes. 

 

I'm swooping?  If you don't want to post than don't. 

Why are you so obsessed with what the democrats can do with other people's money?  First off, you can complain about all the tax breaks, but corporations contribute on such a level that it renders you and I completely useless on any scale.  You think if you just died, went away, that this country would be brought to it's knees?  You should reassess your value to society before you suggest what's fair.  It's laughable to suggest you bring anything to the table, that you would feel cheated by the entities that created everything around you.

I never said you didn't want tuition prices lowered, but you knew that already my guy.  It's really any suggestion of self responsibility you don't like. 

At the company Christmas party this year you should head over to the corporate table and share your ideas.  That lesson will be free of charge.

46 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Well thank God we have you to set us all straight, huh?

If you think corporations and the extremely wealthy aren't playing games to cheat the tax code then I'm not sure what to say. 

It doesn't address anything Woody.

If a pipe breaks in your attic and causes the drywall to fall on your head, the first person you call shouldn't be the drywall guy.

Nothing you have to say ever addresses the actual problem.  It's always "see those rich people over there...".

So if you don't fix college tuition prices, which must not be worth it anymore, what did you actually fix?  You can mic drop everytime you legally steal people's shit, but only an idiot would think they are actually fixing anything.  Can kicking 101. 

You gotta love how college kids these days think...

The extremely rich corporations that offer 401k matching, stock options, paid leave, insurance, competitive pay, and on and on....are not paying their fair share...so shake them down and take their money?  Fucking amazing with all that education THIS is the logic that rises to the top.

I don't give a shit how much college costs, thats between you and the school YOU choose.  In fact, if you want to take someone's money, take their money.  If this is the best solution you can concoct than they certainly got paid too much.  

I guess it's up to the less educated to fix the economy, the 'intellectuals' apparently aren't good with money.

How about some compromise, if you get an abortion under 18 you have to agree to 6 months of inpatient treatment on how to not to be an irresponsible asshole?  And if you don't complete the treatment, it becomes 6 months hardtime.  I mean this for mom and dad.  If it happens again, the penalty gets worse.

Obviously, I'm not talking about rape scenarios.  I know in this case every female would claim they we're raped and it would fall on the shoulders of the males, which should appease the left.