Buehrle>Wood

115 million and that's only the first part of the case from my understanding. This is awesome. Gawker needs to die.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 07:50 PM) Probably shouldn't be a 14 seed Yeah. KenPom has them as a favorite vs ND/Michigan

Hulk Hogan wins case vs Gawker. It's going to be worth more than 115 million. Pretty sure he only asked for 110. WOW. f*** Gawker. So glad this will bankrupt them.

I had MSU out in the round of 32. I'd like to pat myself on the back but I had Dayton in the elite 8 out of that group.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 03:38 PM) Dan Hayes ‏@CSNHayes 37s38 seconds ago Adam LaRoche's retirement paperwork has been filed.

I really don't believe a word Laroche says at this point.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Mar 18, 2016 -> 10:30 AM) He had been on campus a few times over the past month and most expected him to commit in the next month or so. Oh well, at this point I just want Groce gone. His mom is delaying the process for his son and wants to draw it out now. Don't know if that's coincidence or not that we have 2 domestic violence arrests at this same time.

I read on the Scout site the entire B1G went 2010-2014 with 6 total arrests. Illinois has 4 in 1 year. Oh and Werner seemed to stop just short of saying Tilmon isn't coming here.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 04:53 PM) This should be an easy case, either it is in the contract or its not. Unless this is some sort of bizarro world where they had junior high school students drafting the contract there will be something called a integration/merger clause so either its in the contract or its not. Id be willing to bet its not in the contract so this wont go far. I just really hope it doesn't delay the Sox spending money now though.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 03:43 PM) I hate to admit that it's Jemele Hill that made a great point, but for everyone asking if KW would have done this if LaRoche played well last year....would LaRoche have quit if he was coming off of a good season? No. Although I not sure sox would have said somethino either.

Atrocious reffing in the Duke game.

Maryland Oklahoma Virginia UNC

Pretty weird to make it commercial free. Lot of down or uninteresting time in spring training.

Talk about some pressure on the kid too. Your dad just threw away 14 million and you're at the center of the controversy. That said if my dad told me to go away for a few days and he'd make 50 grand, I'm pretty sure I'd understand by age 14.

When I first heard it, I assumed the kid was a toddler or someone not in school. That's pretty strange for a 14 year old.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 04:49 PM) So, let me make sure I understand the argument. Your position is that a Trump presidency would destroy the Republican Party. The establishment are the ones who take money from special interests, and that could create a ripple effect altering the system. If my understanding of your argument is correct, it still doesn't alter the point that it takes millions of dollars to run for office at the federal level, in part because of the way the system is set up. Do you think that Trump would make changes to that system (ie, advocating campaign finance reform or putting justices on the Supreme Court who might overturn Citizens United)? Without that, then even if you are correct and a Trump presidency creates a shock to the system and collapses the entrenched Republican establishment, the money and the special interests are just going to latch on to the next crop in Washington... unless the entire political system is going to be filled with self-supporting billionaires who can finance their own campaigns. That's why I'm struggling with your argument. I'm following what you would like the end result to be. I just don't see how Trump accomplishes that. I'll address this a lot further in another post but I've spent way too much time in this thread today so I'll take a bit of a break. Yes, I expect him to do everything in his power to change campaign finance reform. He's got an ugly, personal vendetta against super pacs and I doubt he suddenly forgets that if he were to take office. I think the rest of the disconnect here involves not acknowledging that in this hypothetical Trump will be the President of the United States. That makes him the de facto leader of the Republican party or whatever it is by that point. This is perhaps more key than any appointment or piece of legislation. Pacs/Corporations/Donors will still be at odds with the man, and as a leader, it should have ripple effects. I'll get into why into another post but I just don't see the Donald Trump movement ending at one guy especially when he's the most powerful person in the world.

I mentioned you need more than Trump himself. I get the next group will be the same as the previous one. Trump is merely the starting point, and it's a lot easier to start from the top. Him reeking havoc on both parties isn't likely to exist in a vacuum if he's able to take the presidency. Edit: this was to bmags.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 04:07 PM) I don't agree with B>W or his support of Trump, but Christ if this isn't just a typical SS post here. "You don't agree with me therefore you're a deluded irrational moron!" Just call him a bigot and we can all go home. Ha thanks. I have more posts by far of anyone in here which have almost all come very recently. I try to get to everyone and every post but the overall combativeness certainly makes me less motivated.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:55 PM) BW, quick question for you here: As I read your responses, one of the big selling points to you with Trump is that he isn't beholden to special interests and you want to see money move out of politics. There are no current rules that keep money out of politics. In fact, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United led to the majority of these PACs and Super PACs. Trump is someone who has benefitted from the lax campaign finance laws. As he likes to continually point out, candidates on both sides of the aisle have curried his favor, seeking his money and influence. Do you honestly think that a Trump Presidency would change campaign finance laws? Do you think Trump would put justices on the Supreme Court who might overturn Citizens United? Wouldn't Trump be a one-off? A billionaire capable of financing his own campaign is an anomaly - it's not something that would alter the system. I guess what I'd like to drill down on is why a Trump Presidency would have any change on the impact of money and special interest in politics generally. Few things: Yes, I find it ridiculous it takes Trump, a billionaire who has bribed the very politicians he's running against, to do this. The problem though is with politicians accepting money. Trump merely gave it, and has no reason to accept it. The system is completely broken, and Trump, being the foremost expert on it, is the first to admit that. Would Trump be an anomaly? Perhaps. That's why I want him to destroy the Republican party. Connections between corporations and politics would be ruined if he's able to oust the Republican leadership. Those connections would hardly be irreparable so yes, its going to take more than Trump. My hope for Trump is to open the eyes of the voter base and I do believe he's the perfect man to do it. I get people hate his showmanship but it's a huge benefit here. He grabs the attention of absolutely everyone, love him or hate him. Trump has done a great job of calling out Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and now Kasich for their connections but it needs to hit overdrive in the GE. Thanks to Trump, the debates vs Hillary will likely be among the most watched television shows in U.S. history. What better platform than for Trump to come out and tell the world how she took bribes from him as well as expose her as the most calculated political machine of our time.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) You're such a fanboy. Kasich also dropped out so Fox had to cancel it. Not much of a debate to have Ted Cruz, or anyone else, up there by himself. Blame cnn for burying that. http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/media/dona...-fox/index.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:18 PM) I'd say that the closest you've come to addressing his racial demogogeury was to hand-wave away the KKK/David Duke stuff. I don't recall you really commenting on his birtherism, Mexicans=racists/criminals, deport all illegals, ban all Muslims, retweet black crime "statistics" from literal neo-nazis, pigs-blood-bullets, immigrants-as-dangerous-snakes-parable etc. If trade protectionism and getting money out of politics are your primary concerns, why do you gravitate towards Trump instead of Sanders? Sanders also strongly opposes the TPP, and his SC nominees are much more likely to overturn CU than Trump's would be. I showed the video of his literally disavowing of Duke but I guess that's handwaving away. I found it ridiculous he had to do it every interview. It's gotcha political discussion at its absolute worst. A grand wizard just supported Hillary too but I'm sure she won't be asked about that. And she shouldnt. Stop wasting your breath on these people. This is the reason these discussions go literally nowhere. You're not convincing me and I'm not convincing you here, clearly. I commented on his birtherism the last page back and it really goes hand and hand with everything. You're being played by even giving it attention. I've addressed this Sanders stuff too already like a lot. We're going in circles on everything. I like him. He'd be my second choice. He just has had 0 chance of getting elected and getting threatened by his supporters was a big turnoff for me, but I don't really hold it against him. What I do hold against him was his response to the aftermath of Friday.

Fox cancels next debate after Trump drops. Has them by the balls I guess.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 02:39 PM) You want to address any of the shortcomings in your understanding of trumps positions or why you are choosing to ignore the racial demagoguery that's central to his campaign? I understand his positions just fine. Sorry it's hard to reply 10 to 1 on here at work. On the racial side, I've addressed it 1000 times before including conversations with you. I don't think think there's much left to say.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 01:10 PM) Over half of his supporters havent finished college and make less than 50k per year. He may have "other supporters" but thats his majority like it or not. So his base is in line with people who voted in 2012? I imagine that's everyone's base because that's the American voting base. 53% of voters didn't graduate college. 41% in 2012 made less than 50k which is actually more than the Newsweek poll I read, which had 33% of Trump voters making less than 50k. Most of these national polls right now are pretty ridiculously inaccurate and outdated though so I won't even use that. I'd look at state by state exit polling if you want to try and tell a story here.