bmags

Cool. I liked it. DIdn't love it. Scorcese tends to push the same storylines.

Wizards/Lakers/Knicks going to do everything they can.

We are talking about basically 2 sessions with 8 justices. Regardless of party, the confirmation tactics have gotten out of control. Senate needs to re-do their rules so appointments have to be voted on. They can even do "requires 60 threshold", but they have to be voted on.

Cool stuff. Was looking for a sox podcast. I usually listen to SSS in browser.

I really hope so. By all accounts he's a good guy, but when he came up to the plate, I'm not sure there was anyone I had less confidence in. He looked like he was like, half the size of himself by the end of the year.

keep fighting the good fight, Jenks.

Yeah, you really should check on that LDF. That is outrageous. Without insurance, it should not cost that much.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 12:08 PM) That depends...will the Bulls get Durant? If so, I am on board with that Butler deal, haha. I love Buckets though. I think we need to move Rose and truly build the team around Butler and another star. Reality is that won't happen so I can only hope that somehow Rose and Butler can be humbled to make it work and actually make this a team. Looking at what the team will be...we dont' have a compelling reason to attract Durant here.

Don't see it as a downside that you can flank her with activism to positions you want. Liberal activism in 90s was not very developed, it had been decimated in late 70s-80s. Much stronger groups now.

So regarding Desmond. I don't think Sox are on him, anymore.

Honestly, yeah that doesn't do anything for me either. If he goes, would much rather be trading with Celts. I don't see bulls trading him thou.

QUOTE (MEANS @ Feb 12, 2016 -> 10:01 AM) A little late but last week the Toronto Maple Leafs unveiled their new logo and I designed it. It was a very crazy and surreal week to say the least. Probably my biggest accomplishment as a designer although the two locker room graphics for the last 2 Blackhawks Stanley Cup wins come pretty close too. Wow, that's awesome.

Doesn't sound like anyone else watched Vinyl then?

Probably worth remembering that our 2014 offense seemed exciting and explosive with Viciedo, eaton, de aza, gillaspie, ramirez, beckham, abreu and flowers. Players have better years...they need to just...have them. Could really use some career years too.

I could throw that same post in the Cosby thread.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 10:47 AM) http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-c...-peoples-votes/ This article is going to be hard for her to counter...and while it happened under Bill's watch, they were essentially a co-presidency in many respects. She can't start screaming billionaires because if you add up the Clinton Foundation coffers, that's what she will be labelled as well...and there's not many in the charity field who can identify clearly any of their accomplishments since that Harlem office was opened. If she loses Nevada, it's going to be hard to convince Democratic leadership she's not seriously wounded as a viable candidate. All the union and Hispanic votes were supposedly in her pocket. She was for the crime bill her husband signed, now against. For DOMA, then against. For a plethora of trade pacts, then against. For bank deregulation, now against. No decision for the longest time on Keystone until oil prices cratered. Notice a pattern? Is the pattern that she's actually been in public policy for 30 years, while Sanders was in the corner, holding hands with a bunch of coffee shops in burlington?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 10:47 AM) http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-c...-peoples-votes/ This article is going to be hard for her to counter...and while it happened under Bill's watch, they were essentially a co-presidency in many respects. She can't start screaming billionaires because if you add up the Clinton Foundation coffers, that's what she will be labelled as well...and there's not many in the charity field who can identify clearly any of their accomplishments since that Harlem office was opened. If she loses Nevada, it's going to be hard to convince Democratic leadership she's not seriously wounded as a viable candidate. All the union and Hispanic votes were supposedly in her pocket. This is just complete nonsense.

The thing is, is there was no actual supreme court vacancies then.

A lot a lot, or the same group that said Abreu had slider speed.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 09:54 PM) The problems with Hillary... 1) Likelihood of her being the one to break gridlock and bridge partisan rancor are about zero. As she claimed, Citizens Unired was aimed at her and her family...this whole right wing conspiracy plot, while partially true, is also quite tiresome. 2) She has an inspirational factor of zero. Speeches and debates, just not her strength. Very few actually like her...I'd even argue more voters passionately like Trump than Hillary, although she's not nearly as universally hated, either. 3) It's very telling that a woman is losing the 18-29 demographic by margins 20-25 points higher than Obama, who was a much more compelling candidate than Sanders. With all the challenges we face, the country needs a younger and more energetic president who is future rather than past-oriented. 4) When the only way to beat Sanders is hitting him over the head with her newfound Obama admiration, it might be enough to hold the African American vote in the South but it's a disaster for the general...then again, so is defending Bush family foreign policy, so both sides are equally lost. 5) No more excuses. She will win SC, but if she loses NV despite large numbers of Hispanic voters, all bets are off. That means there's a war of attrition all the way until the convention. What has she actually accomplished in all of her time as a public servant? Her resume is Rubio-esque as a senator. My biggest concern is that it feels like the Clintons have learned nothing at all from 2008...clearly misreading the electorate both times, and by a wide margin. It feels their time has come and gone. 1) OK. As opposed to Sanders, whose plan, again, is to just to give a john galt speech over the radio where everyone suddenly learns the virtue of socialism and forces the Republicans to acquiesce to his demands. Gridlock isn't going away. If you hate Gridlock, vote republican and get a unified house, senate, executive. If you care about liberal policies, vote for Sanders/Clinton, knowing that they will be extremely limited until we can deliver them the house/senate. C 2) Clearly many passionately like Hillary. In 2008 she had a whole contingent of voters we were told would stay home rather than vote for Obama. Now we have older feminists waging war on younger feminists. Here's what will happen: Clinton, who saw favorability drop in primary losing Dem support, will see it rise again if she wins nomination, after all of the Sanders supporters suddenly remember how much better any dem president is when the republican candidates start attacking liberal priorities, and then find common ground as she defends them, and then they realize they like her and vote for her. How do I know this? Because I have watched an election before, and every time we hear "brokered convention!" "I'll never vote for them!" and then they do. 3) Your second part of this paragraph clearly is not related, because you are implying that 18-29 year old women are not voting for Hillary because she's old, and instead are voting for a 75 year old man (OBVIOUSLY women are low-energy and would be so tired). It could be that 18-29 year old women are a more liberal bloc, and are voting for the more liberal candidate. The country doesn't "need" a younger more energetic candidate, that's just politico nonsense. "Well I was going to vote for sanders cause of energy, but without him I guess I'll go with Rubio because of youth, even though he supports nothing I do". 4) Yes, supporting a popular outgoing president will be a "disaster" in the general, this is a great article for Politico. 5) This is a primary, she'll win and do how she does. The states she was strong in last time she's weak in this time, but the early states were not good for her. "What has she actually accomplished in all of her time as a public servant? Her resume is Rubio-esque as a senator." - This is ridiculous and very easy to Google. "My biggest concern is that it feels like the Clintons have learned nothing at all from 2008...clearly misreading the electorate both times, and by a wide margin. It feels their time has come and gone." She did not lost 2008 by a wide margin and is in a tight race now. Wide margin means something different than you think. Also if she was so unprincipled why wouldn't she just start screaming millionaires and billionaires? It's like she actually does believe in things.

Yeah deadpool was good. Saw it Saturday. Some of the gore was too much for me but it was much funnier than I expected. TBH after the last trailer (which showed basically all of the weakest jokes), I thought it would be terrible. After it got good reviews I was excited to go. Definitely were kids under ten in the theatre though...

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 07:36 PM) That was quick? ? I figured I probably would not want to specifically write something up later so I may as well finish since I grabbed a keyboard for it.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 06:14 PM) Alright, I'll bite. Why do you support Hillary? 1. My general thoughts are that my values line up more with Sanders than Clinton (particularly when it comes to hawkishness). However, I'm not sure how realistic his policies really are. Seems to have his head in the clouds a bit. 2. I also have a negative gut reaction to Hillary because I don't want another Clinton (or Bush). Maybe that's dumb, but it's my gut reaction nonetheless. 3. As of right now, I'd probably go Sanders in a primary and Hillary or 3rd party in the general. FWIW, the issues most important to me are infrastructure improvements and education. And, more recently, improving/changing the relationship of police departments and the citizens they serve. Sure, had to move to a desktop, but this will still be rather quick. First off, in response to you - I put numbers in front of your paragraphs for a couple of quick points: 1- I am also concerned about Hillary's hawkishness. However, I think there is a strong faction of "doves" in the democratic party and democratic base. I'm still concerned she will put US resources in unproductive places where she may see inaction as weakness, but am not concerned about a full-fledged war. Part of my pro-Hillary points comes back to this. 2 - I don't think its dumb. Even with Obama in office we had 8 years of a very Clinton-cabinet. They are part of a very powerful family, and I share concerns of dynasties. However, institutions matter more than people. She is an effective instrument of the policies the democratic base will push. As you see with Justin Trudeau, we aren't unique in this. Sons/daughters of politicians help bridge gap to multiple generations of constituents but also have experience on how to work in a modern political landscape. I'm pretty sure my posts on soxtalk from ages 17-22 alone would ban me from any public office. 3- Please, please, please do not go 3rd party. If you care about infrastructure and education, know that you may not get what you want in the next 8 years what you want. But the president that comes next may very well flip the supreme court. The next president may very well also keep the things you'd like to improve from getting worse. I guarantee you Hillary will be able to appoint a justice that will make rulings that will allow not cripple fed gov't ability to help national infrastructure or help with national education policy in a way that a Republican candidate winning would. On why I support Hillary. First, I am very concerned about the Supreme Court with RBG's age. I do not know what will happen with Scalia's seat, but I imagine the Republicans will just refuse to vote and the #bothsides-ing of the media will allow it to happen. I think Hillary is the better of the two candidates, but I support both, and I think this is a very important election in order to preserve some of the groundwork for liberal policies laid under 2008-2010. I think Obama was a very, very good president, and when I look at the 2008 election I find it remarkable how many of the topics he implemented policies for. I credit Pelosi for her incredible work in the house, and Reid who, looking back actualy did a hell of a job with a difficult group to keep together. So, I am voting the democratic ticket. I will happily vote for Sanders. I will happily vote for Clinton. I think the debates have been reassuring that this is, thankfully, a good crop of candidates even though the dems got decimated in 2010-2014 in governerships, senate and house seats. As a candidate, I'm happier to support Clinton this time around because I have been thrilled with her improvement as a candidate. She has been much more disciplined and ran a much better campaign than she did in 08. I think she learned a lot of lessons and applied them, which is consistent with whom I think she is as a public official and person. She makes mistakes, can often be wrongheadedly defensive about it, but has shown the willingness to change and improve from those mistakes. - In point 1 I discussed how I worry about her hawkishness. This was the single biggest blackeye in 08 and why I went with Obama initially. That's the downside. The upside is she is a very skilled diplomat with lots of international respect among world leaders. I don't know why Sanders is so inept at attacking Hillary from the left on Foreign policy, but he is. Libya is this big open area to hit and he doesn't hit it, and frankly it's because I don't think he cares and understands. His answers are just way too simpleton that I cringe. Yes...coalitions will solve all. Well Clinton has shown ability to tackle the tough challenges in coalitions. I didn't come to this at all times. I was frustrated with her after SOS, and it wasn't until after that I recognized her work in pushing the hard sanctions on Iran that led to a fruitful second term with Kerry. She also did very good work in AsiaPac. I find her non-support of the TPP very compelling, even though I support that deal and think it's good enough to go on and tweak later. SOS used to be the position to elevate people to president,a nd its easiy to see why now. Her complete comfort in handling FP questions in debates is telling. - Point 2, I think women's issues are finally hitting a tipping point for federal policy and I trust Clinton to lead the way there. I don't think Sanders won't, I think he'd be great here as well. But for all of the crap she takes of being unprincipled, she has stood early and often for the repeal of the Hyde amendment, something I strongly support. This is not a popular move, and she has made a tremendous case for it. I like the fact that she is so comfortable making the cases for the unobvious issues affecting constituencies like this. In the same way that I think its refreshing that Sanders actually calls on all people to pay more taxes because the government can provide them with a good they can use, I have liked what I've heard from Clinton on this front. It's important and she's good at it. Obama, an incrementalist in someways much like Clinton, was sometimes gulity of taking the easiest piece of progress and packaging it as the whole argument in a way that I felt undermined the future ability to build on a policy item. I didn't like that he couldn't win the argument on death panels, I think Clinton has her finger on those bits when the make sense to her and she believes in it. I fully acknowledge though, that when its a liberal base issue that she doesn't seem to carea bout she does tend to throw it under the bus without a fight if it will not go through. - In 2008, healthcare was a major issue in all of the debates. Its one of the reasons I find it so funny that there apparently was "not enough debate" in 2010 2 years later during passage after 10 months of negotiations. But it should be noted that Clinton held her ground on a mandatory penalty on people who did not buy health insurance, because without it the financials of the bills would not make sense. You couldn't add a whole bunch of sick people to the pool wihtout offsetting it with younger healthier people. Obama basically contended that you could. He was wrong, and she held that position because it was technically and intellectually right. Again, when she has a good grasp of something taht she is pushing forward, she knows what is workable and does not shy away from the difficult aspects of the bill. - This is somewhat anti-Bernie, but I have trouble separating the Candidate from his following. I am annoyed by the social media presence and their constant victimization posts. THIS ISNT DEMOCRACY to coin flips. THIS ISNT DEMOCRACY to super delegates, as if they had no idea about 8 years ago. I also am just annoyed by his policy framing strategy. Some times I hear him talk, and I'm just floored and think its enough to support him. Other times, I hear him just say millionaires and billionaires over and over again, and I'm just like, this guy is just saying a point people want to hear. And I worry that as with in 08, as soon as people realize Sanders won't just be able to debate the republicans into inputting their policies they'll disappear again, as they did in 10. I think the Dem party needed a break from the DLC. But Hillary's time with the DLC is exciting to me now because I think the dems need to make serious gains in conservative areas with candidates that may not be 100% in party lock step, but have enough flexibility to push through dem economic plans at LEAST. This is where your infrastructure comes into play. - In her time in the Senate, I think it's clear that one of Clintons interests is the actual effectiveness of government. She worked very hard as Senate chair on her many committees to make sure the government programs she looked over actually worked. It's far away now, but she was a popular senator who worked across the aisle to improve benefits for veterans on healthcare and education. Sometimes this works against the clintons, where they strip down programs instead of building them up. But I find her an effective advocate of good government. That said, I do find her supporting cast often annoying, and I do think even though she is unfairly often embroiled in controversy, she needs to be better at avoiding it. That's some of it. It also rubs me the wrong way that Sanders is so conservative on gun legislation. Obviously that's capitulating to his consituency and had he actually been in the fights of the 90s and 00s he would have had a lot more awkward moments that his supporters could not be able to fall back on his "purity"

It felt like for a while whoever the shortest guy was would steal the show because you could feel the height and you could see the effort in them jumping that high. Big men used to be screwed because everything they did just looked a lot less dramatic. They didn't look like they were jumping as high, they didn't flail their arms/legs as far. I feel like dwight was the first real big man to make his dunks look as full of effort as shorter players. From then on a lot of taller players thrived like Blak.e.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) That's pretty much what I hear from all Hillary supporters. I just support her, dammit. Truthfully I think most who support Hillary either are doing so because they would never ever vote Republican and the other democrat candidate is kind of off the wall bizarre. Good luck to Hillary supporters as she will be continuing her fight to stay out of jail. Her email situation/FBI may be in the news for a long time until it culminates in formal charges? Yes, just like the formal charges that came out of the 6 year whitewater scandal. Also, don't quote me unless you are actually responding to or extending a thought that I wrote. I did not write "I just support her, dammit", I wrote that I support her, and would gladly explain that to someone worth my time.