Pac_Man

While I was over there, I found this: http://www.azcardinals.com/cgi-bin/ultimat...ic;f=2;t=021371 This player might be worth taking with our 2nd round pick. If he worked out well, we could rid ourselves of Moulds' exorbitant salary while getting a guy who's taller, faster, and has better hands.

Thanks for "contributing."

Watch what you say about my Mrs.!

Those jerks are always after me anyway. I hate them. If I've sent them back to their base once, I've done it a hundred times. It's like trying to get rid of cockroaches.

No power pellets for you!

Any time there is a chance to add a Pac Man to your team, you need to take it.

The bottom line is that Vick knowingly gave a disease to someone he said he loved. It's a question of whether to punish him or let him get away with it.

I don't agree. Not only did the Saints give up picks 3- 7 to move up a few slots in the first round, but they gave up next year's #1 pick. That pick turned out to be the 2nd overall in the draft. Giving up two top ten picks (including #2 overall) plus a bunch of lower round picks is too high a price to pay for anyone but a Hall of Fame QB.

A lot of what that site has to offer is the same tired old Leftist propaganda. In reference to the death penalty: "The antidote to violence is not more violence." On war: "Catholic teaching calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding ever more effective ways to prevent conflicts from arising, to resolve them by peaceful means, and to promote post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation." On affirmative action: "We support judiciously administered affirmative action programs as tools to overcome discrimination and its continuing effects." Clearly, it is an act of injustice to give Michael Jordan's son a racial preference over the son of a West Virginian coal miner. Yet this is what affirmative action does; and this is what the Catholic Church seems to be advocating. As for the whole pacifist/anti-death penalty thing, do you think that hardened criminals respond to intelligent dialogue? They respond only to the use of force. A government has the duty to defend its citizens from crime, even if this comes at the expense of the lives of hardened criminals.

The poll indicated the Catholic vote was split 52 (Bush) / 47 (Kerry). It's close enough to 50/50 that you can't make generalizations about the political preferences of Catholics.

If you guys would stop shouting at each other, you'd realize that both sides have good points. Should the environment be protected? Yes. That's why the Clinton presidency was such a disappointment. Clinton's biggest contribution to the environment was saving on trees by using the Constitution as toilet paper. Has the Left shown concern for human life? No. It basically ignored the worst mass murder in human history: the Soviet Union's Holocaust. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM On the other hand, the Latin American Catholic Church's strange insistence on fighting birth control while doing little to discourage out-of-wedlock sex has strongly contributed to that region's overpopulation problem. However, the Latin American Catholic Church's views are not reflective of the right wing in general, especially considering that the Latin American Catholic Church has been strongly influenced by Marxism! What we need to do is to put namecalling aside, and simply ask ourselves what kind of a world we want to live in. Then we need to go out and choose the policies that will get us to where we need to be. I want to live in a world with dolphins, so I favor protecting them. I want to live in a world without overpopulation or poverty, so I believe the Latin American Catholic Church should be promoting birth control while discouraging out-of-wedlock sex. I want to live in a simpler, freer world, which is why I favor a smaller, simpler, more just government.

Clearly, more needs to be done to help the environment. Any time the government gets involved with spending money directly on a project, there is the possibility (certainty?) of massive waste and inefficiency. A better solution is to use free market incentives to encourage people to do what they should be doing anyway: - A tax credit of $500 or $2000 or whatever it's supposed to be for a hybrid vehicle is far too small. The tax credit should be $10,000 or more to force a fundamental industry change, instead of playing around at the margins like we are now. - Similarly powerful tax credits could be used for clean energy sources. - The present system of pollution licenses could be modified. At present, a pollution license (for a coal-burning plant) costs a fraction of what policy-makers had thought when the system was put in place. Why not start cutting back on the pollution allotment of each license? This would strongly encourage firms to either invest in pollution controls, or else find clean energy alternatives.

I agree with you, and I'll take it one step further: the costs that the American people bear as a result of massive Third World immigration exceed the benefits that large corporations derive from reduced wage costs. However, large corporations are better organized than the American people at large, which is why the invasion is allowed to continue.

If we had Shelton in the middle of the line, we could run the ball straight up the middle with real authority. I mean, we could just pound it down their throats. Just run it right at them, and wear them down over the course of the game. Teague wouldn't be perfect as a LT due to his lack of strength. On the other hand, Teague wouldn't be a perfect center for the same reason. No matter what position that guy plays, you'd look to upgrade it via the draft.

I keep hearing that Shelton is a lot stronger than Teague, but also a lot slower. So why on earth would we put Teague at C to deal with the likes of Pat Williams while Shelton is at LT trying to block people like Dwight Freeney? I'm no football professional, but wouldn't it make sense to do things the other way around?

"Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household." - http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html And those are just the costs imposed directly by immigrants on the taxpayer. When you add in the indirect costs caused by more crowded roads, longer lines at stores, higher crime, and lower wages for the unskilled American worker (whom the pro-immigration crowd seems to think is lazy and overpaid), the costs of illegal immigration are even higher.

The future projections enforce my point: as of 2001, the country had already been flooded with illegal aliens, and their wage rates were already low. While the report I cited does not describe the assumptions behind its future projections, I hope and believe that their optimism is not based on the assumption that per-hour migrant worker costs are likely to fall even further. On the contrary, if NAFTA will help Mexico as much as its proponents say, the result will be higher wages for Mexican workers; and therefore higher wages for migrant workers. If a relative decrease in food prices can be accomplished despite this possible migrant worker wage increase, it would further demonstrate we don't need slave labor to have inexpensive food. A number of factors will affect U.S. food prices going forward: - A decrease in available farmland due to population expansion. The main driver behind population expansion is immigration. - Advances in farming techniques - Increasingly sophisticated genetically modified food products - Increased investment in farm equipment due to lower interest rates - Increased demand for food caused (once again) by immigrant-driven population expansion. - Other factors As you can see, the USDA had to make assumptions about the above factors to arrive at their model. What percent of farmland did they predict would be lost to suburban sprawl? How successful did they believe genetically modified foods would be in raising the overall food supply? You wrote--incorrectly--that migrant labor is responsible for lettuce being $1 a head instead of $5. You also wrote that immigrants do not come here for social services, because the cost or danger of coming outweighs the benefits they could get from social services. These two points contradict each other because if it's worth immigrants' while to come here to do physical labor for $5 an hour (the only way they can possibly hope to drive down food prices), it's also worth their while to come here for social services. At present, illegal immigrants are rewarded for breaking the law by having their children declared American citizens. I fail to see how the elimination of this carrot would be a violation of the Constitution. In any case you fail to cite whichever portion of the Constitution you think this immigration reform would violate. As far as the comment about my ancestors: when they came here, America was a great nation. People--especially in small towns--left their doors unlocked at night. There was a sense of unity, of community, of a shared sense of right and wrong. Different people had different religious views; but there were some things that almost nobody did--stealing, for example. My ancestors did nothing to disrupt this state of affairs; but instead allowed themselves to become Americanized. As the Tuscon Weekly article makes clear, many of today's immigrants lack this basic respect for the American community. Many steal, or vandalize, or leave massive amounts of litter. Moreover, many or most Latino immigrants have no particular desire to become Americanized. In regions of the country where Latino immigrants are numerous--such as central Florida--the result is a coming together of Latino and American culture. Except that the meeting of these two cultures does not produce the enriched wonderful culture that liberals wish it did. It produces a culture of the lowest common denominator--which is to say, a culture of the American mass media. What I saw when I lived in central Florida was fundamentally different from--and inferior to--what I experienced when I grew up in Western New York. That's not the future I want for my children, and that is why the invasion of America must be stopped.

Most "worker protection measures" increase unemployment, because companies that make bad hiring decisions find it more difficult to fire those they shouldn't have hired in the first place. Therefore they become more cautious about hiring people. Massive immigration increases unemployment, because you're flooding the job market with plenty of new applicants. You say that immigrants can be credited with keeping lettuce at $1 instead of $5. The implication is that immigrant labor is a lot cheaper than the American alternative. That point undercuts what you've been saying about social services. The point about $5 lettuce is inconsistent with economic data. The overall consumer price index rose from 100 in 1982 - 1984 to about 170 by 2001 (see page 16 of http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/pdf/mc...ch/qnspline.pdf ) In the meantime, the price index for food rose from 100 in 1982 - 1984 to 173 by the year 2001. See http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/waob021/waob20021f.pdf In other words, food prices from 1983 - 2001 increased at about the rate of inflation, even though the country was being flooded with legal and illegal immigrants. You would think that new farming techniques, genetically engineered crops, etc. would cause food prices to decrease in relation to the overall price index. It used to be safe to eat raw eggs, because chickens were raised in more sanitary (and therefore more expensive) conditions. In the past animals like cows and pigs were fed grain and other plant substances; today they are also fed crushed bones from other herd animals. If illegal immigrants were half as effective in driving down food prices as you claim, then in combination with these cost-cutting measures food prices should have fallen through the floor. Instead they have risen at the pace of inflation. You seem to be seriously suggesting that money could be saved by cutting border patrol spending. I'm not sure I should dignify that idea with a response. I will point out that the border patrol is quite possibly the most underfunded federal agency we have. In addition, most of the September 11 hijackers were illegal aliens. Had the American government taken an interest in enforcing the right of the American people to a sovereign, uninvaded nation, September 11 would never have happened. I agree that the present incentives are a draw for immigrants to come into this country. Clearly, it is mistaken policy to allow the child of an illegal immigrant to become an American citizen by default.

Good point, erynthred. It's also a blanket statement on the other side too: I know Americans who are happy to make $6 an hour for hard work. Saying that all Americans are too lazy/spoiled/whatever to work those jobs just isn't right.

It occurred to me that your example of some Chinese guy paying $50K to come here is a very poor one. The usual excuse for allowing this country to be invaded is that we need immigrants to work for $5.50 an hour to do manual labor. Do you think that some guy from China is going to pay $50K to have the opportunity to do that? Wouldn't he be better off just staying in China and continuing to do whatever it is he did to get the $50K in the first place?

Well, if you want facts, I could point out that the U.S. offers generous social services; whereas in the past it did not. Did it ever occur to you that offering social services to people who don't work might attract people who, ahem, don't want to work? Oh, sorry, I guess in your world that's just paranoid propaganda. If you want a quantitative look on the costs immigration is imposing on our nation, go here: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html If you want to learn more about immigration's human cost, go here: http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/ For a look at the impact illegals have on the American worker, go here: http://www.carryingcapacity.org/100000.html

There are three differences between then and now. The first is that in the past, this country was empty, and needed people. The second is that many of today's immigrants are coming to take advantage of the system (social services, etc.) rather than to make a contribution. The third is that many of today's immigrants have no interest in becoming Americans, or learning about American culture.

The problem with Bush's slave labor plan is that it's basically having the U.S. import people while exporting jobs. The net effect is a direct assault on the American worker; especially the unskilled American worker. It became clear in the presidential debates that BOTH candidates had sold out to corporate interests on the immigration issue.

I hear this a lot, and it's wrong. I remember back before this country was flooded with illegal aliens, and guess what? Produce, milk, etc. were cheaper then than they are now.

Can Evans replace Moulds? No. Moulds is a possession WR, and Evans is a speed guy. Should the Bills be looking into replacing Moulds with a less expensive possession WR with better hands? Absolutely.