bmags

Growing up when I did, I think there was a real stunted growth due to Nirvana/early 90s rock where a line was divided between serious and unserious. They destroyed the unserious, terrible corporate hair metal of the 80s, and real musicians wore their white tshirts and looked dirty. And if you believed that, which I did for a long time, it was an easy progression back to velvet underground, stooges, etc. It was easier to understand Stones. But I never bothered to understand Bowie. There had been too many glam bowies after bowie to understand that "that" was radical. And then you actually listen to his albums and realize you've liked Bowie this whole time, not because I liked his songs, but because everyone of the bands I liked was influenced by him. And then even though I wasn't obssessed with Bowie ever in my life, I left last years MCA exhibit thinking "I'm obssessed with david Bowie". So I'm not shocked someone your age may have had a deep connection to the guy even though there would have been no catalyst for discussing him. I feel as pulled as when Lou Reed died and I actually was obssessed with Lou Reed.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 01:18 PM) The opposite should be true. If the GOP was losing because voters (due to DNC messages) viewed them as too far right, the expected response would be to become more moderate in order to prove Democrats wrong. Which is what the RNC itself DID say after 2012.

I don't like a single qb in this draft.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 01:04 PM) The right wing believes they really lost because they weren't right wing enough, which has pushed the party further to the right to find candidates. If guys like Romney and mcCain aren't painted that way, the probably capture more moderate votes and the party doesn't look like this today. The propaganda backfired. Fine, but I don't see how the Democrats were to blame for that. Democrats say Republicans are too right wing, republicans lose, decide to go more right wing says everything you need to know about republican voters, not Democrat party strategists.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) The irony is that the Dems largely opened the door for Trump. By painting moderates such as McCain and Romney as fire breathing right wingers, they set up the idea that these guys weren't winning elections because they weren't right wing enough, opening up the door for the true right wing fringe of the party. Socially it has made me desert the party, but it sure has empowered the idea that in order to differentiate themselves from the Dems, this is where you have to be at politically. This does not follow to me. The democrats were saying that the moderates of the party were too right wing, and those moderates lost the election, so therefore, they needed more rightwing people to be nominated so the democrats would say...that they are centrists? While I believe Romney is a moderate, he was not running on a moderate platform. McCain did mostly, and Bush did in 00.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 11, 2016 -> 11:18 AM) This is absurd. You think that half of republicans are just terrible people? I think they are misguided people and I cant say I understand how anyone could vote for him, but to just assume they are terrible is absurd too. But yes, if my only two choices on the ballot were Trump or Hillary, I'd vote Hillary. In reality, if Trump is on the ticket, I'll write in a candidate. WHile I'm sure I can be related to them and share a beer with them, if you are to ask me what you are if you support a man with the highest power in our country because he blames all of your problems on "others" (meaning other minorities, immigrants, etc), you are a terrible person. You are saying that you would rather the country punish some other people so you can benefit. That's a trait I would instill or look for in people I consider "not terrible". That it is so large a swath of republican primary voters? That is not my problem.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 10, 2016 -> 08:24 PM) He's not going to build any wall. He's not going to chase people out of the country. So yes, he's lying. But they all lie. Hilly and Bill haven't lied?? Right now I prefer a.) Trump. b.) Bernie. c.) that's about it right now. Greg, out of curiosity, what do you think a President does?

South Carolina has seemed to lean much more toward establishment candidates than Iowa. I know Gingrich wasn't Romney, but he wasn't an outsider in the way Trump/Cruz are.

I just hope this isn't the guy I'm thinking of. I never listened to Rongey again after he went to bat for Kotsay over Thome.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 10, 2016 -> 10:44 PM) Why didn't the US cutoff the refuge cabin? Just seems silly to let more people gather there and let supplies continue to flow in. Why wouldn't we just surround them and let them get hungry (or sober)? I still don't understand this either.

I really got into Bowie in the last two years. Some of the 60s/70s acts were too much like reading a textbook (i.e. were supposed to know them) and never did catch up. Then I actually listened to Low after getting into the stooges, and then went backwards and forward. The thing with Bowie is he had so much associated with his theatricality that if you weren't there, it's lost how freaking good his albums were. Also, I think the idea of this guy that brought trends to the forefront wasn't really that cool if growing up in 90s/nirvana era. Now I think it's so amazing that one guy can like, bring all of Japanese fashion to the west like Marco Polo just 40 years ago. Stuff that can't ever happen again. Also, he just seemed to always support artists in a way that other big acts didn't. He was a really cool person I'm glad I lived when he lived.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jan 10, 2016 -> 07:18 PM) Outside of Sicario, that whole post was great, bmags. Especially the last line. I ride hard for Emily blunt for action roles. Script was very "Hollywood does cynicism" but she's great and worth watching. Also add spy to popcorn movies in 2015 worth a watch not worth ranking.

Finally saw the Big Short. That was tremendous. I'm so amazed that I'm not sure I've seen a movie adapted so literally from the book (I mean conversations, characters, settings, etc), and I can't believe this is the Book I say that to. Carrell was really good for that role. From afar, I thought he would play Bale's character. Top Movies of 2016, subject to change due to older, faulty memory. 1. Mad Max 2. Spotlight 3. Brooklyn 4. Big Short 5. Star Wars 6. Creed 7. Sicario Average movies I enjoyed my evening watching despite not being more than filler: Spectre, Trainwreck, Martian. Actual best movie of decade: Aloha

Yuck, what an awful trade.

Didn't TOR largely just trade Revere for savings?

Ah, the problem with TDKR wasn't that it was a mess of a script with too many characters and the worst bad-guy-twist ever, but it was really just that I wrote a better script and story in my mind (not hard) and could not comprehend that what I was watching was best movie of the decade!

QUOTE (Lillian @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 02:07 PM) He is also a left handed hitter, and you guys all know how much weight I give that consideration. Moreover, he kills RH pitching, which is just about all the Sox see, at least from starters. I don't think that he is going to cost that much in talent, given that he is owed $37Million, for these last two years of his contract. He certainly is not worth Quintana, and I wouldn't give up Fulmer for him either. What do the Rockies want most, prospects or established pitching? I'm afraid that I never have quite been able to fully comprehend the Colorado factor. Would it be reasonable to expect him to perform in Chicago, and in the A. L.? That's my biggest concern, even more than the injuries. I'm not sure Colorado yet has a gameplan for what type of team it wants. If I was an outside the box kinda guy, I would pinpoint Colorado hard for a job. They have gotten close but have been too timid to be really creative.

Ugh, why is the force hereditary, that's stupid. I have to say, i think it's unlikely that any of this is known. Remember that this is now passing writers from abrams to the other dude. There may have been stuff abrams introduced which the next guy may not run with.

Hilarious to think they could get q with Gonzalez contract. They may wait to see what happens with Ozuna. They'll have to take a lesser package.

pull those leverage levers hahn.

I mean, he need only look to his teammate Jimmy Butler for advice on how to make it look like you were fouled more effectively.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 11:40 AM) Thanks. What would be the difference and is there a place to find the info? It is a topic of discussion at the university as it sure seems that the cost of education in Illinois is driving the college student out of Illinois and they aren't returning. This is just Illinois but it also grows into the topic for the US. Also I asked Justin Wolfers about the negative wage growth and this was his response: "One month down [doesn't] mean much. Over the past year, wages have grown, and wage growth is outpacing price growth " i.e. real wages are up this year, so don't sweat january.

I have a hard time believing that the US is seeing white collar jobs move out. Move out to where? The US financially has done much better than most countries globally. Places like China are taking away blue collar jobs by paying their workers sums less for same work. A loss in wage growth could mean the jobs created are paying workers less money to do same work prior. It's unlikely a loss in wage growth would be coming from the "white collar" jobs. Also, it's not like Illinois is alone in rise in tuition. To whom are the peer universities you are comparing to?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 11:19 AM) Would this indicate that the added jobs were more "blue collar" jobs while more "white collar" jobs are moving out? With more jobs but less pay especially with the new minimum wages, it would seem that the US is losing higher paying positions. Or is this an incorrect assumption on my part. That's nominal wage growth and its not helpful to draw assumptions without knowing what's happening with real wages.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 8, 2016 -> 10:59 AM) Everyone was so pissed at RH for sticking to his plan of no deals longer then 3 years and convinced that the sox had no chance. Now the agents are going to the other extrme .RH is going to try to work the giving up a pick angle to bring the offer up from 1 year to suit the team better. It may not work but RH is really working the market well with few teams involved. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing. 1 year deals may bring a lot of teams out of the woodwork and pay them at a price we can't afford. It's a really smart move by upton's agent, I don't think he actually will go 1 year but it's a way to create some bidding of services.