ewsieg

I know I'm about the only one that is somewhat sympathetic to Snowden on this site, but this is a horrible reasoning. Because most people could reasonably speculate that the government does something it shouldn't, it's alright?

I just read this following article before jumping back on this site and seeing your post Chuck. It might be a long storm he needs to wait out. https://sports.yahoo.com/report-brett-favre-used-his-charity-foundation-to-give-funding-to-southern-miss-athletics-235528444.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63036991 Putin is so desperate for conscripts he just gave Snowden citizenship.

I can't say what would have happened if Lindbergh won, but opinions can change. To be a warhawk 2 years ago meant you were a republican. Today, not to be a warhawk means you are endorsing fascism. Also, are you saying that if Germany attacked at Pearl Harbor and not people that looked obviously different from us, we would have just said that sucks and waved our hands in the air indicating there is nothing we really could do with our measly 130 million population?

Election night on CNN means John King, can't go wrong there.

Sadly the reason is probably because we're more conditioned and used to seeing the abuse of poor people. Favre got lucky the Queen died when she did. His dick pic got more coverage, granted salacious things always tend to get the headlines. As for Vick, from what i've heard, sounds like he's a great example of actual rehabilitation.

The Bulwark had a good interview with a former CNN correspondent. The short of it is they see the shrinking numbers in cable news and while each network has competed, especially in primetime, long term they don't think it'll be a cash cow like it has been. CNN sees it's biggest numbers when a major event happens, so they view that as when it comes push to shove, people still trust CNN. As such, the concern isn't about making it profitable as a single entity, but Discovery wants it as their news crown jewel for their Discovery package.

The problem isn't that you didn't understand my numbers, but rather you didn't understand my sarcasm. I work for a Fortune top 50 company. Even during good years, layoffs are a common end of year thing and IMO, it's to add costs to the bottom line to shrink bonus pay while forcing the remaining folks to do more for less the following year. As for interest costs, it doesn't matter how costs are incurred. More interests, higher wages, higher supply costs, etc, it'll result in mgmt finding a way to try and cut those. Heck, I see an argument that reduced revenue is the issue. Increased revenue can help hide a smaller ROI, that is definitely true, but even flatlined revenue will result in a focus as cutting costs.

I usually side with you Screwball, but the numbers don't work here. Paying an extra 55 million in Interest is a great thing, not only for FedEx, but for UPS as well, especially if UPS was more responsible with debt. FedEx will lay off workers in order make up for it and they'll make sure to lay off enough that the severance packages incur large additional costs which they will write off, while shrinking their costs for next year and demanding more out of their existing staff. UPS will state that this is an advantage that FedEx has over them now, so while they don't even need to, they will follow suit and due the same. Their service will be worse next year, but their profits will be up. It's clearly a win/win for everyone involved.

I'm not saying no one thinks this, but i'd argue it's not a significant portion. Trump was a lot like Rand, looking to stay out of other countries issues regardless the reason. That was a position that had much more support from Democrats than Republicans traditionally.

In that interview I posted from a republican mayor of the Chicago suburb, he stated he was given no notice of migrants being shipped to him from Chicago. But as you stated, Lightfoot cares about those migrants, so this GQP mayor can STFU, amirite? Again, apparently it's only trafficking if you don't care about them. How else am I supposed to take what you're saying? In the interview he says he will welcome them and talks about what they have begun to do for them. He even goes further and says he is not against more coming, but hopes that instead of the press conferences used by the Dem Governor and Chicago Mayor to bash Abbott, he'd appreciate a heads up and some assistance in knowing what he'll be facing so he can welcome accordingly.

As I tried to point out, and you hopefully saw me highlight the many times I said they were wrong, but as I tried to point out, the right is the only one pointing out the horrible conditions migrants are dealing with as they come to the US as they currently feel they are free to enter. There is a legitimate argument that our POTUS stance on this policy is helping drive that number coming here up. The left doesn't seem to care (in the eyes of the right) that a large percentage of women get sexually assaulted... I could go on. So when the argument is that Abbot and DeSantis are putting them on busses and planes to cities that are advertising that they are welcoming and that's a horrible injustice, it doesn't ring true to many on the right. And again, i'm not saying that's a correct way of thinking, but simply there are some legitimate points that aid in that way of thinking. But once again, for clarity, DeSantis is a POS for dropping off migrants on an island where a majority of residents have left for the year, as well for sending migrants anywhere as a result of a political stunt.

So another words, you have no issues with a community trafficking migrants to another community, without any notice, if deep in their heart, they truly care about those folks.

Exactly how could I relay to you that I think DeSantis is in the wrong on this?

Can't find a way to simply say 'Chicago was wrong too', huh? Nope, it was justified when Chicago did it because the suburbs have a lot of Hispanics.

Chicago was sending them to suburbs, without any notice to those communities, aka the same thing Abbot and DeSantis are getting shit on over. I posted a link above. I brought up San Francisco as what they posted on their website is what most of you on the left think. That being a Sanctuary city is about standing up for immigrants and supporting them. There was nothing in that statement about the pragmatic reasons why they choose to be one. They posted it to 'show support'. My direct response to that was about Dearborn, which is pretty supportive of immigrants without claiming Sanctuary city status. Which again, maybe they practice that, IDK. If I'm looking for a better way of life and dealing with the mess in my country in Latin America, I see this and to me, it would look like an invitation to come and if that's part of the purpose of this designation, then they shouldn't be waiting to yell at Abbot and DeSantis when illegals get shipped to them, they should be reaching out and helping facilitate getting folks up to them right away.

Note i'm not saying it's entirely right, I'm just saying even if there are some pragmatic and reasonable case for it, there is some political theater as well. And DeSantis and Abbot are POS for using illegals in this political theater, all i'm saying is that while they are POS, they have also proved a point that the left is all about welcoming folks into this country, until they have to deal with the problem. Than apparently it's ok for them to human traffic them out to the suburbs and/or simply bitch about it instead of simply taking these folks in and welcoming them.

Southwest Detroit certainly has been propped up by incoming immigration.

That is not "it". Everyday communities elect Mayors, hire financial managers, and hire new Police Chief's who enact new policies in how they will serve their community for legitimate and pragmatic reasons without grandstanding and making it public to all. For many of these Sanctuary cities it's not about that at all, it's about political grandstanding. https://sfmayor.org/sanctuary-city I could be wrong, but in looking at Sanctuary cities in Michigan I don't show Dearborn. When I think of a striving immigrant community in Michigan, I think Dearborn first. Now maybe the city quietly is a Sanctuary city, I know Wayne County is, but that's pretty much for show as isn't Wayne County Sheriffs only in the jails now?

No offense, but the above pretty much sums up the Right's complaints on migration with the Left's policies. The left's line of thinking: - There is no difference between a migrant/illegal and a citizen. - Border states run by evil GOP'ers should understand this and take care of the millions (yes, 1.6 million last year, highest ever recorded, we already beat that this year). - If they can't take care of them, they should figure out a way how to. -If they ship some to cities that have openly invited illegals, they are horrible people -If those cities don't have the resource to care for the handfuls sent to them, they can ship them to other cities, in fact, that shows they care about them and are looking out for them.

I don't want to get into something where I'm defending Abbot and DeSantis, but the definition of sanctuary is "a place of refuge or safety." By designating themselves as this, are they not inviting folks to them? As such, Abbot and DeSantis are simply helping get migrates safely towards a place of refuge and safety. Biden's policies on the border has helped put a huge number of folks through an extremely dangerous path towards what they believe is a Sanctuary country and you could argue Abbot and DeSantis are simply following POTUS' guidance in at least giving them a safe path once they are here. (Note - while I think I made legitimate points above, I don't actually believe Abbot and DeSantis are good faith actors and are absolutely focusing on political points over the actual humans messed up in this political turmoil) https://wgnradio.com/john-williams/burr-ridge-mayor-gary-grasso-on-migrants-coming-to-his-suburb-we-resent-the-way-the-governors-office-has-treated-us/ Short interview with a Chicago suburb, around 3 minutes in "We didn't know they were here until they were in the motel". So here Democrats did exactly what everyone is screaming at republicans about. I will add a note of difference, later in this interview he goes on to say Lightfoot reached out to him and apologized for how it went down.

While I don't think this is the right thing to do, there is an argument to be made that if certain regions/folks don't think the border is an issue, bring the issue to them. In short, walk a mile in someone elses shoes. The Chicago Mayor was livid with Abbot for folks Texas has bussed up, but then did the same thing and shipped them out into the suburbs. The Illinois governor called up the national guard to help and is complaining about the cost.

It wasn't Oz, this happened in PA, not NJ.

Frisco burger was amazing back in the day. I have no idea if it's changed and if not, if I'd even like it anymore. I think the one on Mound is just a laundering operation, almost always empty as far as I can tell driving by.