Soxbadger

Since I only watched Doctor Who based on a recommendation in this thread, Ill return the favor. http://flapship.com/doctor-who-why-you-should-watc/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 31, 2012 -> 08:04 AM) I'm not sure he's wrong and that audibles aren't vastly overrated, if you have a well designed playbook. Not allowing audibles probably is a pretty decent strategy...if you have a QB that really trusts his coordinator. Defenses at this point do such a good job of disguising their packages on 90% of the plays that if you're audibling out because of something you see before the snap, that setup probably isn't what the defense is doing anyway. But...the QB has to be able to trust the coordinator and the system. If the QB thinks a run would work better than the called pass, he needs to know that he can still get the ball out and have the receiver open where he's supposed to be. If the QB doesn't trust that, then he's going to get frustrated if he can't switch the play. Audibles (imo) are one of the most important things for an offense. You have have the best playbook in the world, but if the defense comes out in a strategy that is designed to beat that specific play, you are a fool to not audible. Furthermore, like you said, defenses disguise coverage, so it would be foolish for the offense to not also disguise what they are doing. Audibles also work as a way to trick the defense into changing out of their call. If they see the QB starting to call out a bunch of different things, they may change their play. Even if its only marginally effective, it still should be done. For example, if you call a run and the defense comes out with 9 in the box, you are probably better off changing the play, regardless of whether the run play was the best designed play in the world. Martz was a control freak who couldnt trust other people to make the right decision.

Barring bookers injury being bad he better be on the team over allen. Its going to be so nice that the bears will audible now. I still cant believe Martz's stupid idea.

Im wondering if I subconsciously remembered knowing it. I wasnt thinking about it when I was making the joke, but I cant imagine I randomly stumbled upon it either.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 09:19 PM) all men are created equal women voting ruins everything Its so nice when someone else knows exactly where the joke is going. Nice work sir!

Because our founding fathers were always right I am a strict constructionist. Who am I to disagree with them? USA USA USA!!!

Dear Ann, It has been less than 100 years since women got the right to vote, we can end this experiment right now!

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 06:11 PM) You still posted it saying younger than 18. Trust me as soon as these kids graduate from HS or hit 18-22 they are off any benefits entirely. They are basically left out to dry. I've seen families petition pretty much everyone available to no avail. And I personally dont think its the federal govnt that needs to help, I actually put more onus on the state level IMO. Either way its been mine and several others missions around chicago to contribute however we can to these families and especially the kids. Personally I think some of the benefits that others get from the gov are way less necessary. Rock, I do disabled guardianships. Every guardianship I have opened was at minimum getting SSI or SSD. the reason I posted it saying under 18 is because I thought you already knew they absolutely get benefits over 18. This is from the Illinois Guidebook I linked: SSI: SSI: U.S. citizens and certain legal immigrants who are financially needy and who are at least 65 years old, blind or disabled. Now there is a chance that these people have assets in the name of the kid, and they arent putting them in a special needs trust, which is some how depriving them of their benefit. Honestly, if you have a specific situation feel free to pm and I will figure it out.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 05:18 PM) Game seems a lot more realistic this year. I played 10 min quarters with accelerated play clock down to 12 seconds and won the game 28-16. Realistic scores FTW. What difficulty level? And its kind of early to be stating this. Unless the cpu cheats there really is no way to prevent 70-7 scores, even at all madden level (and that is with 5 minute clock no acceleration or 7 minute with).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 04:37 PM) You read it wrong, they dont qualify when they are over 18 or sometimes the hard cutoff is as late as 22 depending on their disability. As soon as they graduate from high school they are completely cut off. Illinois is also one of the few states that cuts them off as well. Its a terrible burden on the families and a source of ridiculous financial and emotional hardship. Heres a link to the organization that is near and dear to my heart. http://www.opportunityknocksnow.org/index.php Rock, That is just not right. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10026.html#a0=0 http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-child-ussi.htm http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?...p;contentID=240 The only reason Im putting all this information in is because the hope would be that you could help people get these benefits, because they are potentially available. And thanks for the link, Ill pass the word around to people.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 04:10 PM) Under 18 or over 65 is the general rule. Which of course, they dont qualify for, just like in illinois where they get cut off. It's the main reason my friend started this charity years ago because his brother was special needs and was basically being thrown to the wolves after he graduated High School. I have had parents come up to me and say they dreaded HS graduation more than when they were shipped off to war. The main reason under 18 doesnt qualify is they take the families income into account. That being said there is a tremendous economic burden on families of special need children. I am not suggesting that the govt should help them, I am more suggesting that the current set up may not be beneficial for anyone. There really is no good answer besides for giving them more money to survive. I guess that is where my problem is, I have no issue giving them money to survive, I just think its somewhat wasteful to spend so much money pretending that isnt what is going to happen.

Okay I thought you were saying when they turn 18 they werent eligible for anything. Im pretty sure they are eligible as kids as well (I dont deal with that so not 100%), but it would depend on how much they make. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10026.html Just looked it up, that does appear to be the rule. (edit) And Im making no commentary on whether or not this money is enough to survive. That is an entirely different subject. Im for social benefits, so Id be fine with them being given more money to live (different than paying money for school, at least in my opinion).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) Lucky him, because here in illinois after a special needs person turns 18 they are essentially cut off from any government help. Its tragic. I volunteer for an organization that helps these kids socially and economically and it has been called a saving grace for their kids by every parent who has participated. Are they getting Supplemental Security Income from the federal govt?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 03:54 PM) I know someone who is able to hold a full-time job because he was educated through high school. He will never live on his own, but he is a nice guy and not ostracized in public when attending weddings, family parties, etc. I also have a friend who teaches high school special ed. Treating them as human beings deserving of education the same as everyone else makes a huge difference. Right, there are different levels. Some have slight disabilities, some will never work a single day. Its sad, no one denies that, but this isnt one size fits all is the point. Who said they arent deserving of education the same as everyone else? Everyone else is put in a class with 1 teacher for 20 other kids. Everyone else gets in trouble if they attack a teacher, if they bite them, if they kick them (ask your friend, it happens at a shocking rate.) There just is a difference between treating them like everyone else and treating them "special", which is conveniently the name of the program.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) I don't know but I also don't care. I don't want a society that leaves its most vulnerable members behind. How is it leaving them behind? If someone can only learn at a 1st grade level, its obviously sad and a tragedy. But does it make it any less of a tragedy if a school spends 2x as much on them then a regular student? What if they spend 10x as much? Isnt that just a poor allocation of resources? Wouldnt it make more sense to allocate more resources to the students who can turn those resources into something? No one wants them to be hurt or taken advantage of, but some of these people will never function in society. No matter how much money is spent on them. So does it really make sense to have a masters degree teacher taking a kid to the Jewel so the teacher can stand there while they bag groceries? And Im not even making this up. This is what goes on in high school special ed classrooms. They are using teachers to babysit, and we arent talking 1 teacher for 30 students, its sometimes 1 teacher for 2-3 students.

I will. haha Its seemingly ridiculous to have a teacher with 2 masters taking a single kid to a store so that they can bag groceries to learn "life skills". Im sorry, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. And unions are a gift and a curse. No teacher wants to say it, but part of the reason the whole profession is screwed is unions. Automatic increase in salary for master degrees is screwing new teachers who come out overqualified. They cant just walk in and say "I know youre supposed to pay me X, but Ill take Y." The reason, the school is bound to the union contract and cant pay a teacher less, even if the teacher agrees.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:45 PM) I don't doubt it is more expensive, but what percent of the educational system is for special needs? 3%? 6%? Can't be much more than that. Its way more. I only have anecdotal evidence but New Trier had to pay $200k a year for a single student to be shipped to a special Ohio school. The regular special ed rooms have at least 5 teachers for about 8-12 students. The regular expenditures are pretty insane. And yes I understand its federal (this is answering SS2k), but its still something that can be fixed. As for tenure, I dont think its necessary. But if youre a school system and you foolishly bargained, thats your fault. Unions were once very important, but they have lost their way.

If you want to talk about a real waste of resources, lets talk about special education and how much money is spent on each student. /crickets Argh damn once again no one wants to be the bad guy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) Now that is funny. It is you who has no idea what you are talking about, or what I do for a living. I know what is happening. I just don't pretend to be better than someone else over a false flag. Well based on what youve posted on these boards Im pretty sure you do something involving trading, perhaps options, and involving compliance. If you are an attorney or an accountant, I admit I was wrong, but Im pretty confident you are not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) Corporations are people too, my friend. Which is why I am fully entitled to hate them, just like people.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) Fair and illegal are two separate things. You've been saying illegal acts, so I just wanted clarification. I'm confused as to how making as much money as possible is immoral. Having 3 kids you can't afford is just as immoral to me as creating dummy corps to dodge taxes. But in the case of the former we want to throw cash at the problem and feel sorry, in the latter we want to hang people in the public square. Makes no sense. I am talking about things that I consider to be illegal. A lot of them are "grey" but as an attorney you understand when the spirit of the law is being abused. I dont think making money is immoral. I dont really believe in morality, I believe in utility. Anyway, having 3 kids you cant afford, my first answer is, why werent they aborted. But therein lies the rub, the party that doesnt want abortion doesnt want to pay for the results. You cant have it both ways. Im a callous b****, I know that. If we really believe these children are a drain on society, change the rules. You get support for 1 kid, but you get free abortions for the rest. I dont want to pay for other peoples mistakes, I just understand that there are consequences if I dont. As for comparing to dummy corps, I think that the corps are worse. At least the kid has a chance to do something amazing and change the world. The corp isnt going to help anyone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) You're just choosing to ignore it by adding lots and lots of other BS to your posts, hoping to get me to leave the original point alone. The ultra-rich use the exact same logic you do, of course you don't see it that way. That would deflate your entire argument. You avoid taxes, just like everyone else in the world. No they wouldnt. Every ultra-rich person has agreed with me. Do you think they are idiots? They understand the difference between gaming the system and taking legitimate deductions. You dont, you think they are the same thing. Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending that this isnt happening. You really have no clue what you are talking about. You dont get paid to help people screw the system, I do. You dont get told every secret and every way they are scamming, I do. You dont have an ethical obligation to keep it secret, I do. You are wrong, whether you want to admit it or not, I dont really care. Its not like you are someone who has any credentials to say you understand how people game taxes. You are not a CPA, you are not an accountant, you are not a lawyer. Youre out of your element.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) Yeah, once you got busted lying, you tried changing the subject and made it into something it wasn't. You still havent showed me where I lied. I said "i dont try and avoid", taking a standard deduction isnt trying to avoid taxes in any way shape or form to a normal person. If you want to make it that way, you can, but its like arguing Im a liar because I said "Its hot out" when the temp was 90 and you say "No thats cold". Maybe in your mind that is a lie, but to no one else it is. You just cant get over how bad you look and are trying to obscure it. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 01:06 PM) SB, how exactly is Romney doing something illegal? He's doing something that the federal government hasn't outlawed yet. That's not illegal, that's just smart. Hypothetically if I were to not pay Illinois sales tax on Amazon purchases, you'd be claiming that i'm doing something illegal even though the federal gov't hasn't mandated that I do that (ignore the state law that is in the courts right now). How is me not paying that tax until i'm told to shady/unethical/illegal? Im not talking about Romney. I have no clue about what he is doing. When I said "most rich people", that was republicans and democrats a like. The amazon issue isnt what Im talking about. There is a legitimate question whether the tax is owed (and an argument that the state of IL really has no right to it, but well save that for another day.) Im talking about setting up fake corps to run expenses through so you have very little income, then using the corp to buy things for you personally and pretend they are for the corp. There are just a ton of ways to really screw things up, most people dont have the type of money to make it work. But if you are talking about millions of tax liability, you can pay lawyers tens of thousands to get rid of it. That just isnt fair, and we all suffer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) The funny thing is you have had nothing of substance either. Pointing fingers isn't contributing. It is the whole problem. But keep thinking it is about winning arguments, and keep missing the point. Actually I have. I said that the govt should raise taxes, the govt should eliminate deductions and the govt should work harder to crack down on illegal reporting. How is that not substance to the issue? Or are you unfamiliar with the words you are using?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) Its funny, but you can't walk away, mostly because you have to keep changing what you are saying to make it work with your point of view. No I cant walk away because Im bored at work and your comments are doing more to prove my point than I ever could. You dont even have 1 single substantive comment. Not 1. I can only imagine trying to fix something with you. Badger: The roof is leaking, we shouldnt try and avoid paying Chicago sales tax so lets buy materials close by. SS2K: But youre still paying taxes. Badger: Yes Im just not going to Chicago Heights to avoid paying the higher Chicago rate. SS2k: But youre still paying taxes. Badger: Argh, you dont understand the point, who cares lets move on, the roof is still leaking. SS2K: Youre a hypocrite. Badger: How does that fix the leak? SS2K: I didnt cause the leak. Badger: Okay great, that still doesnt fix the problem. SS2K: What problem I just won the argument. Badger: The house is destroyed Im going home. The end