• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About PleaseBlitz

  • Rank
    The Pro Bowlers
  • Birthday 10/31/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
  • Location
    Yuppie Headquarters
  • Occupation
    Law Student

Recent Profile Visitors

676 profile views
  1. I think the interesting question here is whether a IV should be made. I voted yes on the theory that it could be just amazing, and if it sucks, it doesn't really take away from the first two (any more than III already has).
  2. So it sounds like you are intent on not adding anything, just more questions without answers. That's fine, you were just trying to move the goalposts away from "mass deportations are bad for the economy" anyways. No point in indulging you any further.
  3. Still waiting for you to post ANYTHING of substance.
  4. Looking forward to getting back in the W column, especially against Philly.
  6. Still waiting for you to offer up any factual support for your assertions (not alternative facts). Not holding my breath.
  7. It's not quibbling over numbers. You are just misinformed, as evidenced by the bull**** source you cited to.
  8. And saying Happy Holidays.
  9. Thank you for posting something from the Heritage Foundation from 2010. No bias there. Even the Cato institute called that study bull****. CATO, formerly the Charles Koch Foundation..
  10. Illegal immigrants pay A LOT more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
  11. I'll add that the last sentence in the above is also critical. The posted study DOES NOT include the impact of removing the consumption of 11 million people. That's 11 million less people buying food and clothes, paying rent and taxes, and consuming the other kajillion things that other people need to sell to earn a living.
  12. As Fanboy notes, besides the human costs, mass deportation is horribly bad for the economy. But in addition to the incredible human costs and practical and legal issues surrounding the deportation plan, forcibly removing millions of workers would also be economically devastating, potentially leading private-sector output to decline by hundreds of billions of dollars. The American Action Forum, a nonpartisan, center-right-leaning think tank, released a study this week breaking down the economic consequences of deporting every unauthorized worker in the US. The authors of the paper, Ben Gitis and Jacqueline Varas, said that based on an earlier American Action Forum study, the direct costs of dramatically expanding immigration-enforcement agencies and courts to deport roughly 11 million people would already cost the US government an estimated $400 billion to $600 billion. ... They found, using estimates of output per worker in each of those industries, that the cost in lost output would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars (emphasis ours): "Overall, removing all undocumented immigrants would cause private sector output to decline by between $381.5 billion and $623.2 billion. This translates to a 2.9 percent to 4.7 percent reduction in total annual output from the private sector." Gitis and Varas went on to say that this estimate is based solely on what would be lost from removing unauthorized workers from these industries, and it doesn't include other economic effects like investment and consumption by the group.
  13. I'm not an here's why: Just because an investigation is happening, it doesn't mean that someone did something wrong. But just the APPEARANCE that an investigation is happening can severely damage someone or some entity. So allowing a FOIA request into an investigation of Exxon will have largely the same impact on the public as a conviction, even though Exxon has not been convicted to or admitted to anything. Agree that the first article is laughably biased and entirely ignorant of how a consent order process plays out legally.
  14. Agree that Milo and the Westboro church are cut from the same cloth. Disagree that the right to free speech should not cover hate speech. Keep in mind the right to free speech only applies to the government. If it only covers "nice" speech, then the right is entirely pointless. The solution to hate speech isn't the law, it's opposing (anti-hate) speech that resonates more, is louder, better reasoned, and effectively drowns out or makes a mockery of the hate speech. :2cents. With respect to DogofWar's excelling post, I would just like to note that, ironically, "I'm not PC" is just a politically correct way of saying "I am an asshole."
  15. I brought my 1 year old daughter to the women's march, which was definitely a protest. Even if she were older, I'm happy to indoctrinate her with the ideas that (1) women and girls matter, (2) you should speak up if you want to, (3) bigotry is wrong, and (4) diversity should be accepted and even celebrated.