jerryskids

Freakonomics has a wonderful podcast series out right now about our broken immigration system. Politically, the host leans left, but it seems to be presenting valid points from both pro and anti immigration: https://freakonomics.com/podcast-tag/the-true-story-of-americas-supremely-messed-up-immigration-system/ I'm not quite done with it but I've learned a lot. It'll take a few hours to listen to it all, but worth it IMO if you want to learn the history as well as pros and cons. The history in a nutshell is: we haven't always been receptive to anyone but western Europeans and German protestants. My one concern that they haven't addressed yet is the problem of attributing old data to the current situation. The "old" data indicates that immigrants cost us money, but their kids and their kids more than make up for it in tax revenues, so it is a net positive. But they also discuss that in 2014, around the advent of social media, word got out to people that if they (and their families) just come and manage to get into the country, there is a good chance that they will stay for life, so the numbers have exploded. I'm not convinced that the old data (something along the points that @5-Pointsmade early in this thread) still apply. This is too nuanced for @The Real timschochet, who just sees the data and concludes that all immigration is good.

The only child he's sharing it with is you. Grow the fock up.

Smartest thing you've said in this thread.

This thread isn't discussion, it's your narcissism.

I don't love him as a pope. But I love him as a person who dedicated his life to the ministry of Christianity. If it is his time, I hope he passes peacefully.

Well then leave.

This thread is not in the spirit of a chat board. Either you want to participate, or you don't. Eventually I'll stop posting here.

Yeah, we discussed his narcissism, he admitted it. I dislike the idea of this thread for reasons you listed, and I've mentioned, but I confess to a guilty pleasure of coming in occasionally to see how unserious he is in his "serious" thread.

If you have a better black comp, feel free to introduce him. Yes, I'm talking about Isabella. McConkey also played for the best team in the SEC, maybe CFB, with Bowers and a bunch of NFL prospects on the line. I'll remind you that my comment was regarding him being the best WR in the draft. If you agree with that, please defend it. It doesn't seem like you will though, since you called him a "good player for a while."

Maybe, probably not. Everyone is looking for the next Cooper Kupp or Edelman. Cards wasted a pick on one, many others have as well. It's one thing to be a weapon on a great team with superior talent across the board against overmatched opponents. It's another to do it in the big man's league, where the teams are all comparable and the defense is full of freakishly talented men looking to destroy you. I don't know enough him to say if he has the cerebral capabilities to do it, but he won't go in the first round.

Here is the problem with your plan. The Bears really don't have that much leverage IMO. Everyone knows they are picking one of these 3 QBs, so the farthest down they could go is 3. Problem with that is, they will have identified their guy, and no GM would take the chance that that guy will be there at #3. In fact I just laid out a scenario where Washington takes Maye, and then the Bears are stuck with Daniels. I say "stuck" because he wasn't their guy in this scenario. So best they can do is trade down to #2, with some sort of guarantee (or a deal similar to Eli and Rivers back in the day, where Eli is drafted then traded after Rivers is drafted). Washington knows in this scenario that Williams isn't their guy, so they probably won't give up a king's ransom to move up one spot. Some capital of course, but not a ton. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

I think that's because he just kicked your ass on this topic. You won't see it tho.

After Washington's failed RG3 experiment, I doubt they choose the skinny Daniels.

This couldn't possibly harm the baby, I presume.

You do not have to wait to be physically injured before defending yourself or others. Assault includes threatening behavior.

Sorry Tim, but any point which ends with "the person I don't like may be a pedo" or "the people who disagree with me are racist" is NOT a serious point. It is a way to dehumanize your opponents. Let your points stand on their merits, if you want them to be serious. I may address your racist-colored MAGA glasses later.

I know right? Look at his last few "serious" comments. - I don't like Dershowitz because he defends Israel too strongly. Also he shouldn't have defended Trump, even though that's what our system dictates lawyers do... Also also he is a pedo. - Baltimore bridge needs to be rebuilt. I think it should be Fed money. Some people think we should discuss our other spending in context... they are MAGA types who hate the blackies.

You already said that, dummy. Your quote said "gender affirming MEDICAL care." Now, re-read my question and answer it with a relevant response.

Dang, we're counting kids books?! I've read some of those a bajillion times. That'd be a good spermoff thread.

I've explained it: progressives will not stop until trans people are considered the other sex, period, full stop, no restrictions or consideration for their long-term health or the well-being of others. If you wake up tomorrow and feel trans, you are trans. Get with the program, comrade.

Is "sex change surgeries" part of the "gender-affirming medical care" which is banned? If so, I'd say that weepaws was accurate, and in fact he left out other critical travesties like hormone therapy for minors.

Probably Lord of the Rings (I know, it's a series not a book) including the Hobbit. At least twice, probably three times. Books I've read twice include Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett, The Source by James Michener, The Last Light of the Sun by Guy Gavriel Kay, Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, the Chronicles of Narnia (another series) by C.S. Lewis, The Giver Series by Lois Lowry. Maybe DaVinci Code. I'm looking at books in my library as I type this so it makes it easy. Books striking me as "I should read that again" are An Instance of the Fingerpost by Iain Pears, and The Road by Cormac McCarthy.

Yes, I am aware of that. https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria I'm questioning the ability to identify a significantly strong enough desire or preference in a child who doesn't even know what the hormones associated with his/her sex feel like. Does he throw a tantrum? The above sounds a lot like a tom boy or effeminate boy, possibly eventually gay.

How does a pre-pubescent boy have "gender dysphoria"? He didn't have any hormones with which to conflict. Also, this is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread regarding women's prisons. Progressives won't stop until these boys can use the girls bathrooms, locker rooms, spas, etc.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread any more, so I'll just say the following. I agree with most of what you said, but the difference with the $3T from Trump is that it truly was an emergency. Biden has kept spending at higher than that emergency pace, without the emergency to justify it.