Blueray - PS3 or Dedicated BR Player?

[bobsticks]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sir Terrence the Terrible again.

props for civility...

[Groundbeef]

Where's Melvin? We could use a good whippin' boy right now.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Call it what you want but it's the only way to fairly resolve the issue within our current tax system. The rich can complain all they want. Tough ****!

I agree with this. But unfortunately, the wealthy have the politicians in their back pocket, and the American public has checked out of the system, but loves to complain about it. Personally the rich are not complaining as long as we have leaders that give them tax cuts when they really do not need it. For the record, I am one of those that Obama's tax increases will effect, and I have no problem paying my fair share into the system. I came to that point when I told my accountant to STOP looking for loopholes and just tell me what I owe when the process is finished. I am very over the greed that drives one who makes enough money, but works and messages the system to get more.

Just to be clear, I think they are both blowhard idiots. I was just using Obama as an example. They are two politicians just like the many before them. I'm tired of politicians but unfortunately in todays election process we only get to choose the least offensive pawn. And thinking what Obama says is idealistic is not just because myself or someone else is scared of change or something new. I want change just as much as you but again these pawns are not going to be the ones to do it. And for the record, I don't get my news from CNN or Fox.

I guess I am more hopeful than skeptical. I do not think any one person will have the momentum or power to change a long standing entrenchment of dogma(that's my realistic mode), but my hope is that the process will start here and can be built on. I do not support Obama because I think he is the cure to what ails all, I am supporting him because he has not been in the Senate for twenty six years contributing to exactly the problems we now face.

I have actually read Obama website from "page to page" over the last few months and I am basing my opions partly on his own words. Maybe you should take a lool at McCain and R. Paul's website for some balance to your savior. I'm not saying either of them are right on all topics but I sure do like of lot of Paul's ideas. Too bad he has no chance in hell of making any further waves.

Do not assume that I haven't read both Pauls and McCains page. I have read those, Obama's, Clintons, the quack Gulianni's when he was running, Richardson and Edwards when they were running, and Huckabee's as well. I have paid more attention to this election than I have paid to the last three. Since I do not vote strictly down party lines, I give all candidates my ears and eyes. You are right, Paul has some great ideas, but he also has some very bad ones as well, just like all of the others.

JSE, no human is my savior, so let's brush that kind of dialog out of the picture.

I think we are actually on the same side here. I am all for more research. I'm just being realistic in saying solar and wind are not the answers to solve our energy problems. They will help but we need other alternatives. Even T. Boone admits this! And, I'm guessing T-Boone has his hand the pot somewhere. That's just T Boone's way.

Actually solar and wind are the answers looking ahead. What needs to be done is to develop those technologies along with other NON OIL based energy based products. If we keep pushing oil, then we are going to stay stuck right where we are. There is a historical precedence for my thoughts. They go back to the oil crises of the 70's. Back then when the Saudi's cut us off, we began to jump all over smaller more fuel efficient cars and other energy technologies(like the electric car) only to abandon it once the Saudi's graciously decided they had punished us enough. Since we do not have enough oil to make us energy independent, then we must focus our energy on finding technologies that are home grown, and safe for the environment(which oil is not on any level).

We absolutely need to explore other energy alternatives but we also need to focus on the here and now and the hear and now is OIL! We're going to need a lot of it over the next 50 to 100years.

We do not have 50 to 100 years of oil anywhere that is easily reachable. We have already gotten all of the oil that is cheap and easy to get out of the ground. Many experts have stated such. If we are still depending on oil 50 to 100 years from now, then we are a failure. In 50 to 100 years this country could be completely off oil, and on to something else entirely. The bottom line is we do not have enough oil under our control to satisfy our needs for anything close to 50 to 100 years, so there is no use in spending valuable resources in chasing that pipe dream. If we drilled everywhere we could, we still would not acheive our energy needs, so what would be the point in sticking to oil as a basis of our energy policy?

These are also based on a false number of illegal aliens in the country. No politician wants to admit the real number which by some reports might likely be almost double the "official" number. I'll accept that many illegal aliens pay taxes but I cannot agree that the "windfall" SS money is more than what the true cost of illegal immigration is in terms of money, resources, free healthcare, government programs, and the loss of reported taxable income.

Since nobody really knows what the number is, how can you say their estimates are false? And how can we really assume its double?(it could be, but its not verified) Even if it is double, the fact is they are contributing 7 billion to SS annually(and it appears to be increasing), and the IRS is reporting an annual increase in filing using taxpayer ID numbers which is what they use when you do not have a SS number. From what I have read, they are contributing billions in payroll taxes, hundreds of millions in medicare taxes(we all pay them), hundreds of millions in state taxes, contributing millions into disability funds, all money they will not get back in benefits. And if we bring their contribution to consumer spending, one could argue they are offsetting the cost of them being here. I however am not going to make that argument. The bottom line is if we took estimates on how many laborors we are going to need to drive this economy going forward, and put it up against our birth rate, it is clear we are going to need far more laborors than we are currently producing. It is also clear that just throwing them out will cause such a financial mess, that it would take years maybe decades (or never) to offset the loss in labor force, and we would be really sticking a dagger in our own hearts. We wanted cheap labor, and we got it, and the problems that go with it. We wanted cheap products, we got them, and now we have no manufacturing base if an emergency required us to become fully self reliant.

I did not mention one State. I mentioned Texas "or any other border state". Of course county hospitals are for people who do not have insurance. However, they are for US citizens without insurance. Not illegal aliens. E/R visits jumped for the rich. What's your point? Are the rich not allowed to get injured?

Unfortunately illegals are here, and they do not have insurance either. So once again, we have a tough choice. Deny them medical help, and have all kinds of diseases left untreated, and running through the public, contact our government and tell them to revoke EMTALA, and we get all kinds of diseases running through the public, or tell the government that if they are going to require EMTALA, they should pay for it, which would motivate them to get a immigration policy legislated pronto. Or, we could ship them all out and cry tommorrow when we cannot get affordable housing, or the cost of a meal or hotel room becomes out of reach, or you cannot find a nanny, babysitter, dishwasher, fruit picker, maid, or somebody to bone meat in packing plant, or do low skilled repetative work all for minimum wage. There has to be some kind of in between solution, because drastic steps going any direction are not going to be very beneficial in the long run, that is for sure.

As far as the rich using the ER, I am not knocking them for it, but adding that they are a component in the mix that must be considered when talking about overcrowded ER. Its not just illegals in a vaccum that is creating the problem. We have an aging population, and it is only going to get worse I am afraid. One point that nobody has even added to the equation is that there are 45.8 million legal residents without health insurance as well, and I am sure a health care system was not built to handle that many either. When you have ER closing in areas where there is no large population of illegal immigrants, that points to a larger issue than just illegal immigration.

And yes, many times you can tell who is illegal. No SS#, No TDL? At least in Texas chances are they are not legal. And who said I am assuming "EVERYONE" from a certain race is illegal just because some are. Could not be farther from the truth. The fact is that hispanics makes up the majority of illegal aliens. Just a fact. I know a lot of E/R doctors through my wife's work. I am friend with many of them. They have told me first hand the E/R's are being used on a daily basis by illegal aliens. People without health insurance use the E/R in place of a primary doctor. That is fine for citizens. Not so much for illegal aliens. County hospitals were not intended to support the healthcare needs of illegal aliens.

Then when an illegal alien gets hurt, or catches a disease where do they go if they cannot make it back their home country? The legal population is at risk at that point. If you let them die in the streets, then morgues are overloaded. If you just burn their bodies, then human rights organizations are all over you. If you throw up fences on the border, then who will do those low skilled low paying jobs? Here in California are farmers are complaining that they do not have enough help to harvest their crops because of the effects of border security(thank God almighty they are doing something), so fruit is just rotting on the trees. The problem is that THEY ARE HERE NOW, and we have to figure out how to deal with THIS situation as it has played out. We are pointing out problems that do not have easy solutions. We cannot talk about sending them back, we cannot talk about keeping them out(they are already here), and they are so sewn in to our economic fabric, we have to take into account of what life would be like if they were not here to do our low skilled low paying jobs. None of this is particularly easy to figure out, and knee jerk, overly emotional solutions will most definately backfire in our faces.

Agree 100%. See my above comments about Blowhard Idiot Politicians. What's the saying? Never trust a politician?

I guess we can also say, never trust ourselves, because we sent them to Washington.

I hope your not grouping me in that category. I thought you knew me better than that. Like Sticks mentioned, I think it's more about paying your share and being a felow citizen and living under the same "burden" as the rest of us. I could care less about race in terms of illegal immigration. Just come here legally. If you want to stay, I will show you where to get in line and I will even buy the first round of beer afterwards. Hell, I'll even buy them a beer just to get them in line.

I am not grouping ANYONE into any catagory on this board, so do not take what I said as a personal assesment, we are just discussing a issue. I do know you better than that. I agree, it is about paying our fair share, but there is no way I am naive enough to take race off the shelf. It does not have to be a prejudicial I dislike you thing, but it could be a power division thing. Let's face it, republicans do not want CERTAIN illegals to become legal because they (and I am speaking of latins from south of our borders) tend to vote democrat as opposed to my peeps the Cubans (without me of course) which tend to vote republican. This is why they scream when one group jumps a fence, and excuse another when they hit our shores. Democrats are willing to obsorb 12-20 million folks because they see political gain. There is a racial component to both of these perspectives, and that is what I was referring to.

In looking at this issue, I am not the knee jerk type because of the complexity of the issue. There are no easy answers to this period. The bottom line is everyone, including you and I turn a blind eye to this for too many years, and now we are seeking a quick fix to make it go away. Its not going to happen. Cutting off public services could potientially endanger the legal public. Sending them ALL back is definately going to cause a financial hardship for this country at all fronts. While protecting our borders is extremely important (it is VERY important to me), getting a comprehensive immigration policy is just as important, because we are going to need the low skilled low cost labor to keep our country competitive(how do you compete against the cheap asian labor that China and Japan use?), because we certainly are not producing it ourselves. Some believe that if we sent them back, our own citizens would fill in the gaps. I have my doubts considering that the whole problem got started (at least in California) because farmers could not find workers of legal status to work in the fields. This was back in the fifties, and with the influx of migrant workers, the problem went away, but created more.

It wasn't but a year ago I was being called a "traidor" or "una marioneta de un gobierno racista blanco" (that is a traitor for those who didn't catch the simularity, and a puppet of a racist white government on the latter) because I didn't like the way illegal immigrants (who ethnically are my brothers and sisters) were pushing their agenda. I took a very hard line against what they were doing, and I was relentless in expressing the fact that Mexico does not allow folks south of its borders into their country, so why should we let them into ours? A year later, after reading and hearing both sides of the argument, my opinion didn't change, but my tone softened dramatically because I realized this issue is so complex, deeply rooted, and there are some very unattractive components in some arguements, that it require far more than a knee jerk response to deal with it.

My own little way of combating illegal immigration!

LOL, go boy!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

props for civility...

The lost art, civil discourse.

[robertblonde]

go ps3 its that master system that the hardware players have to match, there may be more connections on standalone players, there designed with the minimum hardware needed to play blue ray, when yours bored from movies theres the games some play like movies
ps3 ,hdmi out to a new reciever that will decode the dobly true hd ,dts hd,etc, be carefull
some new recievers only take the pcm from hdmi, not the bitstream {denon 2808,3808 would be good choices}

[kexodusc]

Wow, Kex goes to Chi-town for a few days and a whole political revolution breaks out on the Ar.com forums.

Sigh...reading the comments here reminds me why I did a reverse-biblical exodus of my own - left the states for the provinces.. (bah-dum-bum). Nah, I kid, I kid...that was pureley financially motivated - and maybe for the beer too.

A few points:
1) I now live and finally can vote in a country that has a 4 or 5 major political parties - know what? the 3rd, 4th, and 5th choices ain't any better. Seriously - what the politicians do is amazing - they find a cause to rally their troops - all this does is turn the people against each other - the ugly side of democracy. They will segregate you based on religion, race, region, or left/right alignment of the political spectrum. There can be no compromise without looking soft to their core members. So they become champions of being different but not champions of change or progress.
Why? Because a political party is a machine. It's purpose is to look after its own special interest. It sells a product - the product is "policy". It competes for customers, but it invests its resources where it sees the highest return on capital, not necessarily where the Nation (the market) would see the highest return on capital.
Here in Canada there is more choice, but IMHO less substance one way or the other. The ideas become watered down, and process and bureaucracy grows. And Canada's nowhere near as bad as some of the European countries with thier political "coalitions" and deadlocked parliaments.
In my humble, mine-all-mine, not-an-expert opinion, the two party system is as efficient as it gets. The problem is the politicical movements have adapted and mastered the game of democracy. Another party won't solve that unless we can honestly believe that party will be free of all the crap that comes with being a political party.

2) The two parties are full of idiots. Differentiation (by that I mean having a position on an issue different than "the other party" remains more important that civil progress. Style over substance. This is the biggest reason our...err...your two parties fail you. Know what? It's just as bad everywhere else from what I can tell. But it's better than ruled by a tyrant...mostly.

3) Illegal aliens...It's probably not fair to blame the government when cheap-skate citizens like me where creating the demand for cheap labour, then turning around complaining about it.

But...yeah, they gots to pay their fair share when they start using serivces. Part of the problem is the immigration process. My wife became a Canadian citizen waaaaaaay faster than any of my relatives became US citizens even 20 years ago. No excuse for it. Most of us are descendants of immigrants who didn't have to wait a decade to become American. It seems sorta hypocritical to say "we got in fast and it worked out great for us, but you guys have to wait in line". Maybe I'm wrong on this again, but it seems to me both parties have said a lot on the matter but have done very little. It's not exactly a new issue.

4) Obama vs McCain? My opinion - sit back and enjoy democracy and rest assured that no matter what happens, the next 4 years are going to be a big improvement over the last 8. It's only a question of priorities and the means to the end. In 2012, you'll go at it again, and America will still be there. America is, was, and always will be defined by her people, not the politicians it elects. Some how things will work out.

5) If I were voting in the US this time around, my only criteria would be to select a politician that establish and build on relationships with the international community - the rest of the world is catching up and America is no longer as important a player as it once was - think the whole world is going to need to re-learn the fine art of diplomacy going forward, it'll be more improtant to make friends than enemies, and that's not something the current administration has done as well as previous Democratic or Republican presidents.
I'm not sure whether Obama or McCain is best suited for that. That's up to you guys to decide this time. But those two guys have a lot more style and character than the boring nerds we have leading the political parties up here.

Thanks for the entertaining read...flame on.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...to respond properly to wisdom like:

Let's start off with a few specifics:



Yes, we're gonna have to make some hard decisions but, once again, the moderate middle and pundits for fair and responsible government are shut out. Why is there no middleground in this conversation. Why is it that the conversation must be between a tax cut and a thirty percent raise?

Here is the rub. I just read this morning that three quarters of all business doing business in this country, didn't pay a dime of taxes between 1998-2005. In that same report, they also stated that most millionares and billionares didn't pay what they actually owe because of loopholes in the tax system. I do think there is a middle ground, and I have put myself right there with my money. Pay what you owe. No loopholes, or ways out, just pay what you owe. I have done that myself, and if all the companies, wealthy and ultra wealthy did the same, there would be no need of any increases whatsoever.

We need to look at the way we raise and allocate tax dollars. Recognize that a ridiculous amount of expenditures are added to the budget through sub-additions to bills. This is the so-called "pork barreling". This is how we get amendments to crime bills that allocate funds to scientific research on the consistency of ketchup. We need line-item-veto. (Wanna get mad? Check out a report from the OMB and look at what we actually pay for.)

Totally agree here. Keep in mind. The thrust for pork barreling is coming from the American public, not just from the politicians. We demand the freeway overpasses who's funding is inserted in a crime or agri bill. Our expectations have to change is order to get a politicians perspective to change. In a democracy, the buck starts with the public demands. Somebody other than a politician wanted the "road to nowhere" built. Could it be that the citizens of Ketchikan just wanted a easier way to get to their airport?

For that you're you need only to look to the candidate representing the middle ground...oh yeah, he/she ain't around because that person would be educated, making them unpalletable to the Far-Right and would insist that people get up in the morning and go to work...a foreign concept to the Far-Left. Of course your Congressman might support that candidate...right after they convince the guy that works in the meth lab to support stauncher sentences on crystal abusers.

You are right, we don't have anyone in the middle(where 99% of the solutions are found), and I think our own citizenery are partly to blame for this. If we as Americans were not so locked into parties, and vote straight down party lines without any consideration that answers are not straight down party lines, we would get better results from our leaders. If the public would get more educated and engaged in the system, our politicians would not, and could not get away with what they are doing. If we didn't respond to the political theater that goes on, it wouldn't happen. We partially feed into this madness, but do not want to take responsibility for the mess it has created. We like to point to Washington and blame them for everything, when it is us who sent them there. Interesting tibit I heard the other day. While the congressional approval level of congress sits below twenty percent, everyone seems to believe that THEIR congress person is not part of the problem. We live in the era of "its the other persons fault, not mine".

Well not so much...and kinda. Terrence has done a comendable job addressing some of the fallacies regarding the contributions that aliens make to the society, and payroll taxes are a huge contribution that seems to be constantly overlooked. That said,...um...

Yeah, not so much...

http://www.rense.com/general63/emta.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDjZ6gzo0C4
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/sh...hreadid=335407
http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=4197

aw, hell...http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ts&btnG=Search

By the way the insurance companies love this stuff. For everyone of these cases they can raise costs exponentially ($25 asprin anyone?). Kinda like a fire in Ash Shu'aybah can result in a 0.30 rise in the price per barrel of oil. It's disproportionate.

After reading a few of these articles, I wonder if the problem is in the policy, or in the illegals. If hospitals were alllowed to turn away those that could not pay, then they would stay in business, and we would be flooded with sick folks on the streets. If they pay for the care of the uninsured, then it would bankrupt the government. These kinds of choices are a result of no immigration policy, and I am not sure we can blame that squarely on illegals. There is another rub I pointed out, we have 45.8 million legal residents that are also uninsured that are in this mix as well, so can we really just lock this all on illegals? Are we cursing their existance, while enjoying the fruits they bring? I think so. So we kinda are sending ourselves a mix message?

Hell yeah, bruh and that number just rose by one. I just cancelled my health insurance and plan on denying the E-unit my SS next time. I'm an illegal from Greenland, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

LOL. Too funny.

Or, maybe it's that folks want everyone to bear the burden equally, the rights and responsibilities of citizenry. Yes, we have established that illegal immigrants pay some taxes to a larger degree than is publicly held. At the same time the burdens in the medical, academic and law enforcement areas are significant. If the problems are systemic you search for systemic solutions, not ones based on a "wanna pay-don't wanna pay" basis cuz nobody wants to pay. I would prefer that we all contribute than return to the days of midwives and leeches.

So we are clear here, I am not champion of illegal immigration, I am with a more rational mind quite against it. My grandmother came here from England legally. She paid her money, she waited her time, and she did this the right way. My grandfather came here from Cuba the wrong way(but according to US policy he could stay), learned english, paid his money, waited his time, and got his citizenship. So hell no, I do not want anyone to be able to jump a fence, and get all of the benefits that my grandparents had to wait, pay, and work for. Just like you, I would like everyone paying their fair share. However, it is impossible for illegals to get health insurance either through their employers(part of hiring an illegal is not have to pay the associated cost of hiring a legal one), and they do not make enough money to pay it out of pocket. So while they are here making it cheaper for us to stay in hotels, go to restaurants, and keep our food prices in check, what do they do? I think all of western society has to ask themselves this question, since just about everyone in western society is relying on cheap low skilled immigrant labor to fuel their economies. We alone cannot supply all of the workers we need to fuel our economy going foward, our birth rate doesn't support it. So what we have here, is private business loving cheap labor, angry legal Americans feeling the pinch, and the federal government loving the windfall tax benefit from both payroll and SS taxes. Clearly the government and businesses have a very different agenda than the public at large.

On that basis alone I would respectfully submit that Shikha Dalmia can shove his "Denying public services to people who pay their taxes is an affront to America's bedrock belief in fairness. But many "pull-up-the-drawbridge" politicians want to do just that when it comes to illegal immigrants" rhetoric up his ass.

Bam!

It isn't always about race T, sometimes it's about standing in line with the rest of us. I'm surprised GMichael hasn't weighed in on this.

I agree its about standing in line, but the race component is always in the picture, but not from the typical slant. As I outlined to JSE, race can be used to acheive more power. Republicans would love for my peeps to reach these shores because they typically vote their direction. They absolutely do not want my fellow Latino's from the south in this country, because they usually vote democrat. The democrats will sell the farm to get more latino voters, so they are just as dangerous. Not the typical bias/hate/predjudice slant, but an opportunity for a power grab.

Absolutely. He's the worst kind of party hack, backpedaling into the prevailing winds of convenience. He's like a less-mean Sesame Street version of Cheney. On the other hand, massive tax increases will do nothing to spur economic growth nor will they do anything to promote American owned businesses...there's really not any guarantee that the revenues will be used to balance the budget either. Obama can promise this as much as he wants but Congress will ratify whatever budget it wants...and override any veto that threatened its pork-barrel self-interests.

We have to be clear that this is a targeted tax increase on the large corporations and wealthy folks, the very folks who have benefitted most from the Bobble head Bush's tax cuts. He just wants to roll back that gift, not just increase everyone's taxes. He wants to give a tax cut to lower and middle class folks who need them the most. Under his plan, I am going to get a hike, but I do not mind one bit. I believe its fair since I got a cut I didn't need in the first place.

You want a thirty percent tax increase? I got one word for ya...Europe. No thanks. That's just trading one set of problems for another and, frankly, I don't think we need to give people less of an incentive to go to work (see European unemployment figures)...

I do not think the Euro way would fit here too well. However you gotta admit, having universal health care, and a paid for college education is not a bad deal. They seem to be pretty happy with it when you discuss the issue with them. I was talking to a French couple the other day, and they really like their universal health care program very much.

As an aside, there has been some discussion of McCain pledging to a one-term Presidency. To these political sensibilities that's something that Obama supporters should be very afraid of. It'll cost McCain nothing in party goodwill and would energize the following groups:
1) people that don't like taxes
2) moderates of both parties that are on the fence
3) people with health/age concerns
4) rascists
5) Hillary supporters

Just a thought...and one that makes me wistful for the idea of a viable third party.

Man, I would like a third party myself, I personally am not a big fan of the current system, and most pointedly, the voting system. I do agree with you on this point big time.

so gutter

I don't like it down there, you can't see anything.

[JSE]

I agree with this. But unfortunately, the wealthy have the politicians in their back pocket, and the American public has checked out of the system, but loves to complain about it. Personally the rich are not complaining as long as we have leaders that give them tax cuts when they really do not need it. For the record, I am one of those that Obama's tax increases will effect, and I have no problem paying my fair share into the system. I came to that point when I told my accountant to STOP looking for loopholes and just tell me what I owe when the process is finished. I am very over the greed that drives one who makes enough money, but works and messages the system to get more.





I guess I am more hopeful than skeptical. I do not think any one person will have the momentum or power to change a long standing entrenchment of dogma(that's my realistic mode), but my hope is that the process will start here and can be built on. I do not support Obama because I think he is the cure to what ails all, I am supporting him because he has not been in the Senate for twenty six years contributing to exactly the problems we now face.



Do not assume that I haven't read both Pauls and McCains page. I have read those, Obama's, Clintons, the quack Gulianni's when he was running, Richardson and Edwards when they were running, and Huckabee's as well. I have paid more attention to this election than I have paid to the last three. Since I do not vote strictly down party lines, I give all candidates my ears and eyes. You are right, Paul has some great ideas, but he also has some very bad ones as well, just like all of the others.

JSE, no human is my savior, so let's brush that kind of dialog out of the picture.




Actually solar and wind are the answers looking ahead. What needs to be done is to develop those technologies along with other NON OIL based energy based products. If we keep pushing oil, then we are going to stay stuck right where we are. There is a historical precedence for my thoughts. They go back to the oil crises of the 70's. Back then when the Saudi's cut us off, we began to jump all over smaller more fuel efficient cars and other energy technologies(like the electric car) only to abandon it once the Saudi's graciously decided they had punished us enough. Since we do not have enough oil to make us energy independent, then we must focus our energy on finding technologies that are home grown, and safe for the environment(which oil is not on any level).




We do not have 50 to 100 years of oil anywhere that is easily reachable. We have already gotten all of the oil that is cheap and easy to get out of the ground. Many experts have stated such. If we are still depending on oil 50 to 100 years from now, then we are a failure. In 50 to 100 years this country could be completely off oil, and on to something else entirely. The bottom line is we do not have enough oil under our control to satisfy our needs for anything close to 50 to 100 years, so there is no use in spending valuable resources in chasing that pipe dream. If we drilled everywhere we could, we still would not acheive our energy needs, so what would be the point in sticking to oil as a basis of our energy policy?




Since nobody really knows what the number is, how can you say their estimates are false? And how can we really assume its double?(it could be, but its not verified) Even if it is double, the fact is they are contributing 7 billion to SS annually(and it appears to be increasing), and the IRS is reporting an annual increase in filing using taxpayer ID numbers which is what they use when you do not have a SS number. From what I have read, they are contributing billions in payroll taxes, hundreds of millions in medicare taxes(we all pay them), hundreds of millions in state taxes, contributing millions into disability funds, all money they will not get back in benefits. And if we bring their contribution to consumer spending, one could argue they are offsetting the cost of them being here. I however am not going to make that argument. The bottom line is if we took estimates on how many laborors we are going to need to drive this economy going forward, and put it up against our birth rate, it is clear we are going to need far more laborors than we are currently producing. It is also clear that just throwing them out will cause such a financial mess, that it would take years maybe decades (or never) to offset the loss in labor force, and we would be really sticking a dagger in our own hearts. We wanted cheap labor, and we got it, and the problems that go with it. We wanted cheap products, we got them, and now we have no manufacturing base if an emergency required us to become fully self reliant.



Unfortunately illegals are here, and they do not have insurance either. So once again, we have a tough choice. Deny them medical help, and have all kinds of diseases left untreated, and running through the public, contact our government and tell them to revoke EMTALA, and we get all kinds of diseases running through the public, or tell the government that if they are going to require EMTALA, they should pay for it, which would motivate them to get a immigration policy legislated pronto. Or, we could ship them all out and cry tommorrow when we cannot get affordable housing, or the cost of a meal or hotel room becomes out of reach, or you cannot find a nanny, babysitter, dishwasher, fruit picker, maid, or somebody to bone meat in packing plant, or do low skilled repetative work all for minimum wage. There has to be some kind of in between solution, because drastic steps going any direction are not going to be very beneficial in the long run, that is for sure.

As far as the rich using the ER, I am not knocking them for it, but adding that they are a component in the mix that must be considered when talking about overcrowded ER. Its not just illegals in a vaccum that is creating the problem. We have an aging population, and it is only going to get worse I am afraid. One point that nobody has even added to the equation is that there are 45.8 million legal residents without health insurance as well, and I am sure a health care system was not built to handle that many either. When you have ER closing in areas where there is no large population of illegal immigrants, that points to a larger issue than just illegal immigration.



Then when an illegal alien gets hurt, or catches a disease where do they go if they cannot make it back their home country? The legal population is at risk at that point. If you let them die in the streets, then morgues are overloaded. If you just burn their bodies, then human rights organizations are all over you. If you throw up fences on the border, then who will do those low skilled low paying jobs? Here in California are farmers are complaining that they do not have enough help to harvest their crops because of the effects of border security(thank God almighty they are doing something), so fruit is just rotting on the trees. The problem is that THEY ARE HERE NOW, and we have to figure out how to deal with THIS situation as it has played out. We are pointing out problems that do not have easy solutions. We cannot talk about sending them back, we cannot talk about keeping them out(they are already here), and they are so sewn in to our economic fabric, we have to take into account of what life would be like if they were not here to do our low skilled low paying jobs. None of this is particularly easy to figure out, and knee jerk, overly emotional solutions will most definately backfire in our faces.




I guess we can also say, never trust ourselves, because we sent them to Washington.



I am not grouping ANYONE into any catagory on this board, so do not take what I said as a personal assesment, we are just discussing a issue. I do know you better than that. I agree, it is about paying our fair share, but there is no way I am naive enough to take race off the shelf. It does not have to be a prejudicial I dislike you thing, but it could be a power division thing. Let's face it, republicans do not want CERTAIN illegals to become legal because they (and I am speaking of latins from south of our borders) tend to vote democrat as opposed to my peeps the Cubans (without me of course) which tend to vote republican. This is why they scream when one group jumps a fence, and excuse another when they hit our shores. Democrats are willing to obsorb 12-20 million folks because they see political gain. There is a racial component to both of these perspectives, and that is what I was referring to.

In looking at this issue, I am not the knee jerk type because of the complexity of the issue. There are no easy answers to this period. The bottom line is everyone, including you and I turn a blind eye to this for too many years, and now we are seeking a quick fix to make it go away. Its not going to happen. Cutting off public services could potientially endanger the legal public. Sending them ALL back is definately going to cause a financial hardship for this country at all fronts. While protecting our borders is extremely important (it is VERY important to me), getting a comprehensive immigration policy is just as important, because we are going to need the low skilled low cost labor to keep our country competitive(how do you compete against the cheap asian labor that China and Japan use?), because we certainly are not producing it ourselves. Some believe that if we sent them back, our own citizens would fill in the gaps. I have my doubts considering that the whole problem got started (at least in California) because farmers could not find workers of legal status to work in the fields. This was back in the fifties, and with the influx of migrant workers, the problem went away, but created more.

It wasn't but a year ago I was being called a "traidor" or "una marioneta de un gobierno racista blanco" (that is a traitor for those who didn't catch the simularity, and a puppet of a racist white government on the latter) because I didn't like the way illegal immigrants (who ethnically are my brothers and sisters) were pushing their agenda. I took a very hard line against what they were doing, and I was relentless in expressing the fact that Mexico does not allow folks south of its borders into their country, so why should we let them into ours? A year later, after reading and hearing both sides of the argument, my opinion didn't change, but my tone softened dramatically because I realized this issue is so complex, deeply rooted, and there are some very unattractive components in some arguements, that it require far more than a knee jerk response to deal with it.



LOL, go boy!

Dammit T! These long post are killing me.

Let's just agree your wrong and I'm right as usual and end it before my freaking eyes pop out of my head.

[GMichael]

Dammit T! These long post are killing me.

Let's just agree your wrong and I'm right as usual and end it before my freaking eyes pop out of my head.

Stop that!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Dammit T! These long post are killing me.

Let's just agree your wrong and I'm right as usual and end it before my freaking eyes pop out of my head.

Okay......Now I am going to Chi town! I was getting tired.....

[bobsticks]

Okay......Now I am going to Chi town! I was getting tired.....

When you gonna be in the Windy City, T?

[bobsticks]

Here is the rub. I just read this morning that three quarters of all business doing business in this country, didn't pay a dime of taxes between 1998-2005. In that same report, they also stated that most millionares and billionares didn't pay what they actually owe because of loopholes in the tax system

.

I won't outright dispute this but I think that it might be overstated. For instance, I know that some of the major corps on the forbes list didn't pay taxes---because they operated at a loss; airlines anyone? I know that my company pays a hefty tax on income but does, in fact, get a substantial break on maintaining properties stateside. In the longrun this may be the cost of doing business as the decision-makers (readrofiteer barons)have displayed no apprehension at moving the means of production overseas. If this is what it takes to keep American jobs here then I may have to come out in favor of it. 'Course, thus far it ain't workin' too well.

As the sunset fades on the American omnipotence in manufacturing we may find it benificial to reconsider some of the open-trade deals we have with the rest of the world. Frankly, as a nation of consumers I'm not sure that it's not our strongest weapon.

"Hi, China? Yeah, it's Sam. Yeah, right. So hey, we've been talkin' it over and as your number one importer we've decided to levy a seven percent tax on everything comin' off the boats in trade for all those intellectual property rights you...well, stole...over the last few decades. What? Yer gonna match that tarrif on Cadillacs. Okay. we'll pay it on all seven of 'em that y'all take...ere'body Wang Chung tonight,See Ya..."

Now as to your point on millionares and billionares, I couldn't agree more. The uber-wealthy are gonna have to take a hit on this but, again, I think we need to be careful to watch the line of demarcation and it's effects on entrepeurialsm. Obama's tax plan (and we'll discuss that more later) would hit some areas that maybe best left alone. Maybe we have to look at breaks for business operators that support employees.

Workers currently pay Social Security taxes on the first $90,000 of their wages. Some people have suggested that the cap be raised or even eliminated altogether. The result would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history, $541 billion in new taxes over the first five years alone. That tax increase would fall primarily, not on the superrich, but on many upper-middle-class families and small businesses. Many experts believe that such an enormous tax increase would hurt the U.S. economy and cost millions of jobs. Even worse, it would do relatively little to fix Social Security. Studies show that removing the tax cap altogether would extend the solvency of Social Security by only seven years.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html#5

That's the CATO Institute T, not Rush Limbaugh.

So we are clear here, I am not champion of illegal immigration,

You dont come off as an unabashed supporter of illegal immigrants, my friend who I now call the Brown Buffalo, just a realist. Your perspective, born of empathy and rational understanding, is still but one perspective. Mine is based on different criteria.

Down south o' heah, in the 'Times truly are "getting hard"' thread I posted a thread, possibly inflammatory, and Auri comes in with an attempt at an ameliorating post. The message was a great one, one of peace and hope, of understanding but theoretical nonetheless. Sometimes I think your posts are the perfect combination of fact and a relentless and restless idealism, no matter how battered by cynicism, showing an embattled will for the "other half-of-the-glass".

I labor under no such pretensions. Maybe because of my job, maybe because of my personality, but I'm gonna look at the endgame and say some things that many recognise but are loath to put into words. And, the truth is that we haven't done everything that we could, or even should, to halt the onslaught of illegal immigration...perhaps for political reasons as you listed, perhaps because of humanitarian reasons. Hell, if we really wanted to stop 80 or 90% of illegal immigration from the south we don't need fences or walls. Just dig a moat thirty feet wide and fifty feet deep and fill that sum***** with sulfuric acid and/or toxic medical waste. Understand, I'm not advocating that we do that, but we could...

...or maybe not. And it's the same humanity, the same optimism, preventing us from doing such a thing that prevents us from daring to admit aloud that some fundamental changes need to be made with the way that we view our country, it's role on the international stage, and, inded, the Constitution itself.

It's time we recognise that, for at least a while, we can't be the caretaker of every Jose, Miguel, and Jorge (or for that matter Sven, Ivan, Ivor, ,Yusuf, and Yakubu). We've hit a population density not of square footage but of input capacity. I don't wanna get all Bell Curve-whack on ya but I don't see alot of nuclear physicist or economics professors coming over through the Rio or across the bay...or from Estonia or Eritrea or England. I'm not sayin' kick everyone out...I'm amenable to discussions of amnesty...but we need to start being particular about who we're allowing in and recognising that we are allowing it.

With the middle class embattled with the largest generation of Americans getting ready to retire, a hostile foreign market, the backlash of COLA debacles of the 70's, a housing and tech bubble and a thousand other conditions I don't think we can afford more hangers-on that don't create wealth.


I'm fully prepared for a history lesson, a civics symposium and a Constitutional lecture...remembering full well that a plain-text reading of that document doesn't acknowledge women, regards "Negros as three-fifths a man", and was around before thirty seven states and a commonwealth.

...and I'm fully prepared to accept that there opposing views probably based righteously on doctrines of international goodwill and human rights, just don't expect me to go gentle into that good night.

I do not think the Euro way would fit here too well. However you gotta admit, having universal health care, and a paid for college education is not a bad deal. They seem to be pretty happy with it when you discuss the issue with them. I was talking to a French couple the other day, and they really like their universal health care program very much

All true, but we're not talking about anypone putting forth a plan that will support sweeping education grants or universal health care. We're talking about massive taxes on the middle class that will result, in best estimates, in merely continuing the current inadequate systems for seven years.

Lotsa stuff to consider and at this point the best advised course of action I've read had been from that venerable Political Theorist 3 Lock Box..."just vote out all incumbants".

[kexodusc]

Heh heh,don't look now but bobsticks is talkin' all political-like.

...fundamental changes to the Constitution...imagine that!

[bobsticks]

Heh heh,don't look now but bobsticks is talkin' all political-like.

...fundamental changes to the Constitution...imagine that!

..or maybe we should just recognise its relevance within context and limitations when using it as a reason not to do something.

[kexodusc]

..or maybe we should just recognise its relevance within context and limitations when using it as a reason not to do something.

Ah ha...a convenient interpretation for a convenient morality. Unless you inconveniently happen to be on the minority on a given matter.
I don't expect it would matter much what was in the Constitution, the general spirit of the document has survived, it's the fine print that gets scrutinized. The problem with posterity is it will always see things differently. No matter what was written, we'd continue to spend far too much time deciding it's real meaning, applying 19th century reasoning here and modern interpretation there.

Maybe Jefferson was right and laws should have had lifespan...that wacky republican.

[bobsticks]

Ah ha...a convenient interpretation for a convenient morality. Unless you inconveniently happen to be on the minority on a given matter.
I don't expect it would matter much what was in the Constitution, the general spirit of the document has survived, it's the fine print that gets scrutinized. The problem with posterity is it will always see things differently. No matter what was written, we'd continue to spend far too much time deciding it's real meaning, applying 19th century reasoning here and modern interpretation there.

Maybe Jefferson was right and laws should have had lifespan...that wacky republican.

I think the spirit of the thing is one of the most graceful and compelling statements of the rights of man in the long and storied history of politics. At the same time, we, as in America, don't have the capability to sustain the kind of economic power and growth, take care of oare our elderly, and be caretaker to the world's lost.

On our way to Hobbes' Leviathan it might be wise for those interested parties to examine the mathematical realities. It might be time for a break, mayhap the world which seems to enjoy demonizing us anyway should be their own caretakers for a bit.

Hobbes was right and Locke was right...even Marx was right. ..because nations and economies and polities are organic, changing, evolving, ebb and flow.

Recognise that any of the arguments made in this have been of complete self-interest. I would expect a citizen of an impoverished country, a prospective immigrant, or a proponent of One World Order to disagree. It would be in their self interest. The realization that as our country fades, like the British Empire before it, others grow and succeed is common sense. That I would propose taking steps, even seemingly harsh ones, to preserve that dominance doesn't make me evil. It makes me human. Don't hate the playah, hate the game bruh.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

When you gonna be in the Windy City, T?

Sticks, left friday,coming back tuesday. Then back to the land of false body parts, and personalities.

[bobsticks]

Shoulda let me know b, just a drive up the road. Coulda had a bevie or three and solved the world's problems...and a walk on the dark side, eh. Plus, I know where all the fake body parts are, woulda felt just like home.

We coulda spared the PS3 community and the world at large our pontificating

[pixelthis]

No Rich, I am not going to do what you just did, you know, not use a single brain cell and just call everything I said bull****. Nope, not going to do it. But buddy, you are part of the problem. Shouting, and getting all emotional, telling others that their opinion is nothing in this kind of discussion is unhelpful. We are both intelligent, and should be able to discuss this in a civil and respectful manner. You are not all right, and I am not all wrong. But really man, you have the communicative finesse of a three year old. This is far too much into emotions, and really lacking in critical thinking. When you enter a conversation with all of this emotional bombast, there is only one direction it will go. That is down.

So please do not twist what I say, and use it to shape your emotional outburst. I never advocated that it is right to steal other peoples identities, I just mentioned it was done. I do not condone illegals immigrants contributing taxes or to SS that way, I just mentioned it was done. I never asked anyone to post anyone private information for everyone to see just because I do not agree with what a person says. I quiet as it is kept, you posted nothing that disputes what I have said, you just blew up. And please do not lecture me about challenging someone information with opinion when you just did the same thing yourself.

Everyone else is discussing this topic in a very civil manner. I am not trying to beat anyone down just because I do not agree with what they say. I am just enjoying an intelligent engagement on a complex and very difficult issue to sort out. We can agree with one another, or disagree, but we certainly do not have to $hit all over each other to make our points.

GOOD FOR YOU, not using brain cells is something you excel at.
People who say that we need to "get away from oil" are basically
refugees from the short yellow schoolbus.
How about getting away from food while we're at it? Or air?
We dont live in the "space age," computer age", or "atomic age", we
live in the HYDROCARBON AGE.
EVERYTHING in our modern lives is shaped, madew, powered, or delivered by oil.
TO say that we need to "get away from oil" is like saying bronze age man needed to "get away from bronze".
We have enough hydrocarbon to last until we can get to the gas giants, which are basically made from the stuff.
THE MODERN WORLD is a product of oil, AND ITS GOING TO STAY that way.
To say otherwise is to engage in typical SoCal, greenie, east coast
type liberalism, coming from people who have never worked for a living,
the same people who shipped our infrastructure overseas, thinking we could run a modern economy on Britney spears CD's, TERMINATOR MOVIES, and taking out second mortages on our houses.
The power went off in my house for ten hours the other day, never got an explanation as to why, but trust me, it was grim.
Peeps like sir talky kill me, they have no friggin clue as to the thousands of people who are responsible for their lights coming on everytime they flip a switch, they think they're gonna run a high powered economy on corn starch and "WINDMILLS"
HYDROCARBON IS A fundamental technology, andif it ever goes away, so will about six billion people, because this planet can support about a billion without it, and that is mud huts, grass skirts, and wooden spears.
Of course with sir talkys obsolete HT he probably wont notice

[kexodusc]

I think the spirit of the thing is one of the most graceful and compelling statements of the rights of man in the long and storied history of politics. At the same time, we, as in America, don't have the capability to sustain the kind of economic power and growth, take care of oare our elderly, and be caretaker to the world's lost.

On our way to Hobbes' Leviathan it might be wise for those interested parties to examine the mathematical realities. It might be time for a break, mayhap the world which seems to enjoy demonizing us anyway should be their own caretakers for a bit.

Yeah, ya gotta live within your means. That's the frustrating part of politics for me. Unsustainable promises from both sides, wrapped in rhetoric.

Interesting last point there...I'm not so sure the world demonizes America - I've travelled to evrery continent except Asia, and was usually treated better abroad than I would be on American soil as a tourist! I really believe that most of the world likes Americans, it's just that from time to time they hate our politicians and hypocritical foreign policy as much as the American voting public does, no different than we treat other foreign political interests. No big deal. I'm sure they'd hate any other globabl superpower as much or more. But let's be honest, we've only been caretaker of the world when it's been in our best interest, not when it's been in the best interest of anyone else. It's not exactly the most genuine thing for us to go looking for praise for it as if it was a charitable donation. Sometimes we got it right, sometimes we got it wrong. I think the rest of the world appreciates the help when it's asked for - it's the guns-a-blazin', you're with us or against us attitude that might rub some the wrong way...and that holds true on and off American soil.

On the flipside, if we didn't get involved as much as we do, just as many on side opposite would be wondering how we could stand idly by...damned if you do, damned if you don't.

For my part, I think America would be best served forgetting about being a global superpower and just concentrating on being the best it can be for itself...the British Empire landed rather softly, they're not doing so bad. Unless you're a king, living in the empire ain't so different anyway, is it? How much better is the standard of living in the US than, oh, say, 30 or so other countries? Bragging right? Meh...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

GOOD FOR YOU, not using brain cells is something you excel at.
People who say that we need to "get away from oil" are basically
refugees from the short yellow schoolbus.
How about getting away from food while we're at it? Or air?

This just shows that your old useless azz is stuck in the past. Does your stupid azz believe that we have an infinite supply of oil in our car trunks too? Has your dumb azz ever heard of fuel cells, hybrid technology, electric power, solar power, and wind power?

We dont live in the "space age," computer age", or "atomic age", we
live in the HYDROCARBON AGE.
EVERYTHING in our modern lives is shaped, madew, powered, or delivered by oil.
TO say that we need to "get away from oil" is like saying bronze age man needed to "get away from bronze".

Perhaps you have been so busy running your mouth(and saying nothing) that you have not being paying attention to what is happening around you. T Boone Pickens has said we need to get away from oil, because we are shifting a great deal of our wealth to countries that are not friendly to us. What will you dumb azz do when we run out of oil? You need to stop being a today thinker, and start thinking about what is going to happen in the future. This is part of the problem, and certainly not a solution. Its time to RESHAPE our future, not stay stuck in the past.

We have enough hydrocarbon to last until we can get to the gas giants, which are basically made from the stuff.
THE MODERN WORLD is a product of oil, AND ITS GOING TO STAY that way.
To say otherwise is to engage in typical SoCal, greenie, east coast
type liberalism, coming from people who have never worked for a living,
the same people who shipped our infrastructure overseas, thinking we could run a modern economy on Britney spears CD's, TERMINATOR MOVIES, and taking out second mortages on our houses.

Unfortunately dino dude, you are part of the problem. We got the first hint that someone else was controlling our energy destiny in the 70's. Unfortunately the world is stuck with idiots like you who do not seem to learn from the past. We do not have enough oil for self sufficiency. The people who do have the oil are not our friends, and quite frankly are our enemies. In the name of national security, you do not intrust your energy policy to your enemies unless you are dumb as dirt(like those folks in Pixieville)

The power went off in my house for ten hours the other day, never got an explanation as to why, but trust me, it was grim.

The power went off on that one brain cell you have left before you wrote this. Though nothing to be grim about, for you, its business as usual.

Peeps like sir talky kill me, they have no friggin clue as to the thousands of people who are responsible for their lights coming on everytime they flip a switch, they think they're gonna run a high powered economy on corn starch and "WINDMILLS"

One billionare agrees with me as well, so I am not so concerned that audioreviews village idiot does not. We have a windmill farm here in the Bay Area that has been producing power for years. And by the way, you don't know people like me. We do not dwell in the depths of stupidity like you do, we are more forward thinkers, unlike you.

HYDROCARBON IS A fundamental technology, andif it ever goes away, so will about six billion people, because this planet can support about a billion without it, and that is mud huts, grass skirts, and wooden spears.
Of course with sir talkys obsolete HT he probably wont notice

Hydrocarbon is a dirty technology that is damaging to the earth itself. If you think we can go with this "technology" forever without damaging the planet, then I have a prime piece of land in the bay I could sell you for a dollar(but I know you couldn't afford it anyway). We have the know how to go beyond this dirty, out moded, and inefficient technology with other forms of technology. You are stuck in the past, because you do not have the brain capacity to think towards the future. Its a good thing we don't have your ilk as our leaders, or we might as well just give the middle east our national treasure now, and walk away a third world country choking to death on our on air.

What a shame stuckpixel, my obsolete hometheater outperforms your newer cheapazz one two times over. I think your poor azz is just jealous that you couldn't afford my hometheater even after they raised the minimum wage for ya.

[Woochifer]

What the hell happened here?!

I go up to the Northwest for a week, and suddenly we're gettin' all heavy and political here. You'd think we were talking about HD-DVD vs Blu-ray or somethin'!

[billyb25]

It's worth buying the PS3 for BR just for the fact that the firmware is updated fairly often.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's worth buying the PS3 for BR just for the fact that the firmware is updated fairly often.

I couple of things make it better than any current standalone right now. First, It is easily competitive with the standalones for PQ, and it can decode all of the current and legacy audio codecs. The second point is its the one of the best upscaling DVD players, and is at least compareable to the Samsung 1200 realta chip, and totally better than any other bluray player in the upscaling department. It also is the fastest loading bluray player, and the most stable as well. BD+ and BD-java is no problem on this player, and that cannot be said for the other players currently in the market.

The Panasonic BD-50 may change all of that, but the PS3 still upscales DVD better than even this player.

[Rich-n-Texas]

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/c...s&oid=63068239

This is the jobber I got - these things are rare in stores, and there were only 2 1080p capable projectors I could demo with any frequency. An Optoma and Epson. For all intents and purposes I found them roughly equal in performance - that is neither had anything extra-special the other didn't have and both delivered great pictures...A few months back when I started looking around the Optoma was a bit cheaper, but things changed in July when I started really shopping - I got a better discount, warranty, free bulb and $300 mail-in rebate with the Epson so my frugal nature took over.

Now...looks like Aug 14 or so for a move-in date, so it's gonna be late August at best before I can play with it
House is coming along though...

Have we trashed this house yet?