Jump to content

Spankytoes

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2218
  • Joined

Everything posted by Spankytoes

  1. As thunderlounge said, transferring points to any hotel chain, unless you are topping off an award, is the 2nd worst redemption option out there. (First being redeeming for a shopping portal) It really depends on how many nights you need and what quality of hotels you are accustomed to staying in. When I was in Dallas, I only traveled for business sporadically so I had to balance the credit card game carefully and get creative with itineraries. For example, Hyatt used to give you 2 nights anywhere in the world + a Cat 1-4 hotel. I would get the card, my wife would get the card and we would have 6 nights covered: 4 nights at the Park Hyatt Paris Vendome and 2 nights at the Hyatt CDG to bookend our vacation. Or, we would stay 4 nights at the Park Hyatt Paris Vendome and then 3 nights at a Cat 4 hotel in London. (2 nights free; 1 night on points accumulated through card usage) Sadly, those days are mostly gone. If it were me, I would look into the Marriott Card. You get 75,000 points after hitting the spend, which is at least 3 nights at a Cat 5 hotel. (25,000 per night) You could easily stretch that to 6 nights off the one card at lower tiered properties such as Courtyard or double up by having your spouse also get the card independently. Again, it really depends on your travel plans. Having a shitload of Hyatt cred doesn't do much if you are staying in Rome as there are no properties there. Marriott and Hilton usually have properties almost anywhere you'd want to go. I'm a Hilton guy myself for various reasons, but I've had great experiences with Marriott. IHG is another decent one with a lot of properties, albeit, I wouldn't use this route if you aren't OK with a HIX or only need 1-2 nights away at a fancy property.
  2. Thanks, I left off a punctuation. You're better than that
  3. Current estimates, based on a few sources I checked, is that the cost of illegal immigration is $116 billion per year. If our fiscal standard is one (1) year, or this has become a recent issue, you would have a point. Every 8.5 years, we add an additional $1 trillion to our national debt that we have no mechanism to recover without raising taxes on legal Americans. (Who are also paying for border security with or without a wall already)
  4. What you’ve written is not untrue, it’s just one-sided. If we are going to play the “political points” game, we can trot out minorities, gays, bathrooms, Catholica school kids, etc. from the other side of the aisle too. If you think that Hillary Clinton gives two shits about a black gay couple trying to get married, you need your head checked. To use an earlier counterpoint against your argument, we setup an economic system based on slave labor that was very successful for 100+ years. We’ve reversed course completely and added both laws and an Amendment to further blacks as equal citizens in this country. I think that we can both agree that the ground still isn’t level. (Without getting into why we think it’s not) Still, the life as a black person in 2019 is far greater than that of a black person in 1800. My point is that you can use this argument to argue in either direction. One, we had existing laws that worked for the vast majority of the country to build the foundation of this country which was thriving, so why change? Second, changing course gave berth to an even greater society from a humanistic standard, even if it’s not a perfect solution. How do you know that Americans won’t do the work if the pay is for a living wage? Isn’t that capitalism? The job needs to be done so I have to be competitive in what I offer or else my business will suffer. I would amend your statement that Americans are too proud to consider those jobs because they have been demonized as being below standard. It’s an honest living for an honest day’s pay. Wouldn’t that work in favor of unemployment wages/benefits? Or help towards homelessness? What excuse would an American have that there is no work, even if it’s a bridge between jobs? If employers' hands are forced to pay a higher wage rather than the market illegal labor provides that could be a distinct reality. You want proof? Be a waiter in America and then go work at a restaurant in Europe. It's night and day in status and earnings despite Americans needing to sing for their supper for less money.
  5. How so? The proposal is to just allow illegals to stay and give them a path to legalized immigration. Why couldn't I get off a plane from Paris, claim amnesty upon landing and become a legal citizen through this path? Why would we need border control at all if we leave the determination to the individual? Free market citizenship.
  6. That obviously wasn't a hard stat, but a weak argument none the less. Link that shows removing your shoes at an airport does not contribute to flight safety?
  7. To attempt to save trillions of dollars they cost us?
  8. On this line of thinking, should we require people entering the US for business/pleasure to carry passports? Where do we draw the line and what do we do with the influx of people wanting a piece of that American Dream when we abolish the requirement of structure? Can you name me any developed country that allows immediate citizenship to individuals without a huge financial contribution? Because there seems to be a lot of them to make America the outlier.
  9. No, that's not correct. We don't issue work permits for illegal workers, so I can't respond to your second question. The detainee either goes back as an undocumented worker until his/her hearing or they go on the run. Care to look up which is more popular?
  10. And a wall is an opportunity to help us curb that situation from occurring because they weren't allowed the opportunity to come here illegally in the first place. No more cat and mouse games until next time.
  11. It's solving it in the same sense as stating that that God created the universe and science as a default, yes. But, why have laws at all then? If we are going to arbitrarily disregard them, why should they even exist?
  12. My ability to constantly restate the "problem" obviously isn't matching with your disagreement that there is a "problem". I can't tell you what you want to hear to validate my position, so I'm not sure what you are asking. Your position is ridiculous in theory and could be applied towards a myriad of issues. Why not lower the age of consent to 8 years old and release pedos? Our immigration laws and paths to citizenship are very clear. You don't reward people for breaking them just as you don't reward a thief for donating stolen cash to charity. It's really that simple.
  13. I'll try not to use big words, but I can't promise anything to you... The problem is illegal immigration. A wall does NOT solve this issue. A wall does have the potential to curb one mechanism...sorry "way"...that illegal immigrants gain access to our country: Illegal border crossings. You are saying that it's something else: Dirty Mexicans and brown people. You seem to think that I too share your viewpoint that this is racial propaganda aimed towards people of color but am refusing to admit that this has any bearing on why the wall is being built. Sure, go with that.
  14. Depends. Are they citizens and entitled to those funds or illegals?
  15. So would a law requiring employers to hire applicants with felonies as a protected class. There are consequences for your actions that are plainly stated before the crime is committed. You're suggesting dealing with debt by getting another credit card. No, it doesn't work like that.
  16. How does that solve, or attempt to solve, the problem? Why not move the drinking age to 18? Probably a popular idea, but what does it do for anyone other than 18-20 year olds?
  17. Fair enough. Let me rephrase: I am all for any solution with the potential to curb the rate of illegal immigration in this country. The wall may not be it. But, it's at least an attempt to do something rather than letting the issue fan out like gun control after a shooting.
  18. What else is there to say on the subject? One side says it's true, the other says it's a fabrication. If it is true, there should be consequences. If it's not, we'll move on to the next attempt to remove a President people don't like. This was the issue that got traction in the discussion.
  19. I don't disagree with that at all.
  20. Of course not. But I also don't think we should fail to address the problem because it's too vast and it's easier to ignore it because it makes some of us cozy on the inside. I'm all for prosecution and deportation of ALL illegals, regardless if they came here through a border or on a visa.
  21. As a free thinker, sadly, I think I am. I also think that Obama was the best and worst President of all time depending on what issue we are discussing.
  22. As stated, I see it as a start. The alternative is to continue on with "catch and release" while never attempting to solve the problem.
  23. Has the creation of TSA, and airport procedures, decreased the amount of potential terrorist activities taking place on our soil? Maybe, it's impossible to say. Maybe it wasn't a huge problem to begin with. Maybe it's a deterrent for trying. You can make an argument either way.
  24. I don't support, or like, Trump. I think it's more telling that you deduce that I do based on having the unmitigated gall to agree with him on a singular idea. I suppose that's what politics and society has become. If you ever agree with the enemy, or in any way try to foster ideals, you're wrong and I'm "woke".
  25. Because someone wrote an article taking data, which can manipulated to defend or defeat any argument, told you so? If I post a counterpoint, using the same data, are you now wrong? Cool
×
×
  • Create New...