Balta1701

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 10:23 AM) I knew that AMEX always did. I meant the other non-AMEX cards charging a fee must be a newer thing. They had been increasing rapidly, but they had been there for years. The Dodd/Frank bill of 2010 actually took some steps to control them by limiting what banks were charging in some cases and more directly allowing retailers to pass that cost along to consumers as discounts for using something else. Slightly biased link from side trying to sue the credit card industry, but the numbers below are accurate.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 08:09 PM) Your link is from days before the Berkely shooting... There was no shooting at Berkeley.

Dion Lewis shredding his leg on a worthless play somehow adds to this

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 5, 2017 -> 09:05 PM) Unbelievably awful coaching by the Patriots staff. You need to be in the hurry up here. Earlier in the game, but vaguely reminds me of the Eagles when they played the Pats in the Superb owl

This is on the verge of being the least competitive playoffs I can remember. The Cowboys/Packers game went overtime and Steelers/Chiefs was kind of close although the Steelers were clearly better most of the game. Well, at least there's some interest in this quarter.

TO will get there, everyone knows it, but there's a list of 15 guys who should be in the HOF already and there aren't enough spots to both clear out those guys and deal with new retirees. When you have that setup, then people are going to have more room to allow "did I like the guy or not" to influence things.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 4, 2017 -> 11:29 PM) I didn't know the Donald Trump thread was a catch all. At least I wouldn't look there for news on the Berkeley thugs. HE personally commented on it. In support of an equal, law breaking thug.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 4, 2017 -> 05:28 PM) Relevance? If you're going to call out something as not being mentioned (that was in fact mentioned) then you believe the failure to mention something of greater importance is a relevant issue. You are commenting on how people have not mentioned something as a negative. For example, I could equally comment on how no one commented on that speaker's doxxing of a trangender student in Wisconsin a few weeks ago, driving harassment that drove her from school. I could comment on how Berkeley became a controversy worth noting here, but one of his supporters shooting someone in Washington a couple weeks ago was not worth mentioning and not controversial (shooting liberals is good sport I guess). I could comment on how the thing he was supposed to, in his talk, show how you could rapidly check the immigration status of people at that university and out people who are undocumented publicly, putting them in jeopardy. But none of that is done by Democrats so it isn't controversial.

QUOTE (New Era on South Side @ Feb 4, 2017 -> 12:13 PM) Shouldn't a lot of people be pissed for the amount of money they lost during that time and not just on housing but their investments? I was in school at that time and my parents said a lot of people were losing money then, even those who played fairly. The right people got bailed out, and if Dodd Frank is removed then if they blow things up they'll get bailed out again.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 03:52 PM) Let me ask what is probably a worthless question, but what does this team look like if you replaced Jerian Grant with Steph Curry? Does this team compete with Boston / Cleveland for being the best team in the East? Clearly the bench is flawed / inconsistent and I'm throwing out an unrealistic scenario since we can't get Curry now..but just asking. Honestly, sat back, thought about how those Warriors teams worked, the scoring punch that would bring countered by the defense on the other side, couple legit big men... They'd need one more consistent 3 point shooter at the deadline somewhere, and I have no confidence in the coaching staff so that would also need changed, but yes I think that team is a contender for the top seed in the east and could hang with either of those teams in a 7 game series.

Tuesday was the 3rd time in January Alone that half a dozen or more Jewish Community Centers around the country were evacuated due to bomb threats.

I think he's in that "Tatisian" spot now where the 2 lines above are both entirely reasonable, but I'd be surprised if he's in-between them. Either he's on fire this year or he's basically the exact same pitcher as last year with a handful more innings.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 01:39 PM) I would imagine that there are all sorts of plans on the table/in the works all the time, and that ultimately it's the President's decision on if and when to execute them. For example, I know with the Bin Laden raid, there were some who thought the planned operation was too high of a risk at that time, and others who thought that the risk levels were acceptable. Maybe we're just seeing the disgruntled side who said "this plan isn't ready yet" or "this plan is a dumb idea" and were proven right, but it's also possible that the operation wasn't fully ready yet but could have been improved via more intelligence. edit: I think what's unstated but clearly visible in the way it was phrased was that Trump didn't actually spend any time thinking about or evaluating this, either. Which, honestly, would anyone be surprised to learn he glanced it it once and then approved it before going off to watch cable news for hours? The real trick is - part of the reason why US Special Forces have, over the past 20 years, built up the reputation they have is - the command at the top has been reliable. The command at the top was professional enough to be able to contribute to risk evaluations on their own. The soldiers get all the deserved credit for their life being on the line, but if the top line command puts them in untenable situations because they fail in their job of assessing risk, people die. Edit: Oh, and you know what might be a reasonable response to this type of report, even if driven by leaks to the press? This is the kind of thing the Congressional Armed Services Committees should look into. They have access to classified intel and it's their job to double check the executive branch on things exactly like this. Somehow I do not have a lot of confidence in that happening.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:28 PM) uh... I don't necessarily believe that. the potential tea-party lite style attacks from the left may just keep the GOP in power. After all, when the Democrats nominated an agreed-upon moderate, a guy Orrin Hatch said Obama wouldn't nominate because he'd be confirmed easily and wasn't left wing enough, and the Republicans didn't even meet with the guy...that totally cost them in the following election.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 10:38 AM) I won't pretend to know exactly how these sorts of raids get planned, vetted and approved, but this is from the Reuters article posted earlier: While this isn't one thing we can say with certainty...stop and ponder how people honestly think the Administration would have reacted had it gone well.

Seeing first notes that a raid on the standing rock protest camp is underway right now.

Sigh

Oh everyone noticed that Russia reinvaded Ukraine this week right? Trump apparently also hung up on the Australian Prime Minister tonight after saying "This was the worst one yet".

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 08:25 PM) I honestly wonder what the hypothetical impeachment/25th amendment line is. With a Republican congress? I don't think shooting someone in the middle of 7th avenue does it.

Who was it who was asking about overseas travel to Dubai?

So apparently he threatened to send our military into Mexico to stop drugs.

All this stuff about Trump being illegitimate does not matter to me here. If the precedent is that the President does not get to have a debate on his nominee after declaring his candidacy then the president does not get to have a debate on this nominee. That is the current precedent we are under. That precedent should remain until previous precedent is restored. Then we can discuss the merits of the nominee, the appropriateness of the appointment, and so on.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 03:44 PM) Not surprised. But that still doesn't mean we can't be outraged either. I would argue that Christians should be most outraged than anyone as this administration is in direct violation of the constitution by choosing to ban people on the basis of religion. This opens the the door to any and all religious discrimination into the legal realm in the name of "safety". FWIW, I think there's a decent case that they made this ban "constitutional". They included all refugees, so that central American kids will get killed along with Iraqis who worked with the US occupying force. Trump may say he wants to prefer Christians but they've made no moves to do that. They've specifically targeted people from certain countries. Yes those countries are majority Muslim, but there are Christians and Jews in them and some of them would have been refugees. They are casualties as they should have known better than to be born in the wrong country. There is however an equally strong and almost certain case that they are in violation of the law. This text comes from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965: I'm pretty sure that's quite clear.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 10:17 AM) Bannon is a Nazi, and he has described himself as a "Leninist" in that he wants to completely tear down the system to rebuild his vision (ethnic nationalism) in its place. LH is right when he says that this pick is what we could have expected out of a Jeb or Rubio or any other Republican.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:47 AM) The court should be filled. If Scalia would have passed say mid-term, there would be no call to wait the two years as the people already voted for President Obama. In this case it was deemed by many that President Obama was not the same man elected in 2012 and in the middle of an election cycle, the decision was made to allow the people have a voice. Admirably really. EDIT: If there is an opening in the next election cycle for President, I'll be good with waiting for the election again. So why is the distinction ok at 12 months but not 24? Please lay out a rational argument for the difference. You aren't allowed to say "the court should be filled" when you had no issue whatsoever with the court remaining unfilled for a year.