Turbeauxdog
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 24056 |
| Registered on: | 8/24/2004 |
| Online Status: | Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Editorial: Trump vs. Vance on Legal Immigration
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/13/25 at 8:15 am to ragincajun03
quote:
they arrive legally.
False premise, the h1b factories are committing fraud.
0
re: 80% of H-1B approvals were for entry-level and junior-level jobs
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/13/25 at 7:48 am to stout
quote:
$100K
It should be $100k yearly, and it will solve.
re: H1b Visas do not take jobs away from Americans - *DISREGARD I AM WRONG*
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/12/25 at 6:39 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Something like 34% of US families earn north of $150K. The idea that our economy has been somehow destroyed by some legal immigrant workers is dumb.
The economy (as measured by gdp while the government is printing money) thrives on cheap imported labor, the citizenry doesn't. So I'm not sure what your point is.
re: Portable mortgages
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/12/25 at 4:06 pm to Kjnstkmn
quote:
Works for me. frick the banks.
Considering they risk manage on a 10 year yield as that is close to the normal refi / repay cycle, yes they are fricked.
re: 'H1B visas are very bad for workers... it's unfair for our workers and we should end it'
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/12/25 at 2:33 pm to stout
I think there are certain talents we need to import, I think the problem could be corrected by making the fee 100k yearly.
If it truly is a valuable skill we don't have here 100k is peanuts.
If it truly is a valuable skill we don't have here 100k is peanuts.
re: H1b Visas do not take jobs away from Americans - *DISREGARD I AM WRONG*
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/12/25 at 1:17 pm to geauxEdO
quote:
by law, companies are required to recruit Americans before hiring H1b visas. In addition, they are required to pay the prevailing wage (aka no undercutting native workers). do some companies violate the law? sure, but they are prosecuted. if the law is enforced, that does not become a problem.
This is absolute bullshite.
re: What Did Men Do to Deserve This? (Another take on the so-called man/boy crisis)
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/11/25 at 6:57 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Have you ever worked outside of the home? You may have an extremely limited worldview that makes it hard to relate to many of the issues addressed in the article.
I've worked at 5 of the largest corporations in the world in a variety of industries and women have been coddled through their careers at every single one.
re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/11/25 at 8:04 am to retired_tiger
quote:
"Any person" means everyone.
Your rationale would completely eliminate massive swaths of government regulation and programs. It would eliminate the progressive tax code, any benefits provided to women or men because they are women or men, all social programs. The list goes on and on. Discrimination is necessary that's why legislation that discriminates stil stands.
re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/11/25 at 6:33 am to retired_tiger
quote:
And the Constitution provides for equality for all persons. Not all persons, except gays. (Or blacks, women, disabled, or other minority group).
Race and sex are protected, not who you want to frick.
re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/10/25 at 11:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're calling me citing SDP as the backbone of Loving "ridiculous" and "misapplied",
So you are illiterate.
I did no such thing. I said it was misapplied obgerfell.
Also, there were 4 justices who disagreed with this asinine trash, how many were calling for the overturn of loving.
Loving is used as a crutch in this argument by people trying to win over emotions by comparing race to who you want to frick.
re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/10/25 at 2:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not if you understand why the rulings were made. And I quoted Loving to you citing the SDP argument as its basis. If SDP is removed, then what is left to support the ruling in Loving? Feelings? Yes. Legal basis? Not so much.
Are you stupid?
Re-read my post.
re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/10/25 at 2:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They're all based in Substantive Due Process. So overruling Obergfell means Loving should also be overruled.
You make this argument all the time and it's ridiculous. I can argue a legal framework was disgustingly misapplied to a case without rejecting the legal framework.
This was a 5-4 decision, did Roberts in his dissent call for the overturning of Loving?
re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/10/25 at 2:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Marriage under the law IS just a civil contract and regime between too people. Religious people’s opposition to it is literally rooted in the fact that it uses the word “marriage” which is absolutely hilarious to me.
The motivation to people organizing their local governments law one way or their other is irrelevant , there is no constitutional reason to dictate this at a local level.
re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/10/25 at 2:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obergefell relied on Loving which relied on Griswold.
You don't have to argue with me that Anthony Kennedy is a buffoon.
It's indefensible nonsense.
And yes I was completely aware of this garbage before you mentioned it for the 1000th time.
re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/10/25 at 1:26 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
it won't be, just as interracial marriage will never be overturned
Retarded comparison.
re: What do you think about Vrabel intentionally kneeling on 1st and goal before halftime?
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/10/25 at 8:53 am to PeteRose
Given your own 40 is basically field goal range for some teams it starts to make sense. Slightly lower your probability of a td and drastically lower their probability of a fg.
re: Why is USAID funding so much of the BBC??? And why is the Gates Foundation??
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/10/25 at 8:49 am to Placekicker
It's their advocacy arm teaching liars in other countries how to gas light their citizens.
re: The sad reality of people leaving NY City
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/9/25 at 6:16 am to Crappieman
If it's like California , the conservatives leaving will outnumber the loons.
re: Witcher S4 sees less than half as many 1st week viewers as S3 (which was a series low)
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/8/25 at 7:28 pm to TigerMan327
quote:
Yen fricks Geralt one last time and restarts the witch school after weakening the bad guy and destroying his army.
They had him dead to rights unconscious on the floor and didn't nuke him so yen could find out he wanted to do bad things to Ciri (which she already knew).
He went on to kill countless more of her people and her ex boyfriend had to sacrifice himself to break the evil mages control of the portals.
This huge mistake is never addressed.
re: What a reporter found when she investigated US military strikes on Venezuelan drug boats.
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 11/7/25 at 2:54 pm to dstone12
quote:
I want a list of Narco terrorists they said they were narcoterrorists.
Bunk has them in his post. Just because you're the driver for the narco terrorists doesn't mean you're not one of them.
Are you claiming they didn't know they were part of the cartel?
Popular
20
