illinilaw08

QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 12:16 PM) If that's how you really feel. It's a bit more nuanced than that though. You said, "Most people in this country know whether they are going to be someone who gives to society or takes from society." Please explain the nuance in that statement...

QUOTE (raBBit @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 10:23 AM) Whatever. I mean you're really jumping ships. I'd rather take one topic at a time than obfuscate and bring up tangents when your preferred person/idea has a flaw. I just don't know why that would apply to me. It's not like you can't have an opinion on one side of the aisle because the other side of the aisle has a different problem on another issue. I've never voted for a Republican in the house, so again, not sure of the relevance here. Seems like you're just pivoting and defending your "team." I was referring free college and health care. We live in a society that is changing and people just want everything free and provided for them. Bernie Sanders has some good ideas but his allure is mostly to people who either a.) aren't doing that great themselves or b.) don't believe others can provide for themselves. College debt is such an issue because government got involved. Making it free would ruin the value of the degree and rich people would still find away to have their children separate themselves through spending money. Who is going bankrupt through healthcare? The people who get screwed in healthcare isn't the rich or the poor it is the middle class. What do you think when someone ends up in the hospital and can't afford their bills? Do you have any industry experience or understanding of what happens in that case? Say Joe Blow is a 25-year-old, works at Taco Bell and has $300 dollars in the bank account. All of a sudden when walking down the street he gets shot and has to go to the hospital for emergency surgery that costs 10x his net worth. What do you think happens in that situation in America? Bankruptcy attorney here. Since the ACA, a lot fewer people are going bankrupt because of medical bills (bankruptcy filings generally are down 50% since the ACA -http://time.com/money/4765443/obamacare-bankruptcy-decline/ - that's not all traceable to the ACA - some of it is that people with majority student loan debt don't get a benefit from a bankruptcy)! That's a good thing! On college debt, disagreed. Student loans are an issue because (a) the cost of college has skyrocketed; (b) student loans are not subject to discharge in bankruptcy; and © a college degree is a requirement for an extremely expanded category of jobs. In my parents' generation, you could be a secretary without a college degree. Now, those jobs require a degree. Making college free doesn't ruin the value of the degree. Making college free doesn't all of a sudden mean that colleges have to accept anyone that wants in. Making college free does, however, reduce crippling debt burdens on students - debts that are unique in that you can never, ever get rid of them - regardless of their ability to pay 10 years after college. In a consumption based economy, people leaving school without massive student loan debt is good! They have more money to pump back into the economy!

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Apr 10, 2018 -> 09:40 AM) Houston can rest every starter and even their 6th-8th man on their bench and they will still probably beat the Kings. I'm hoping Spurs beat the Pelicans (and Denver to win) and miss the playoffs. Would love to get that 14th pick. Pelicans clinched a playoff berth. Best case scenario is that they lose to the Spurs, Nuggets beat T'Wolves, Thunder beat the Grizzlies. I'm pretty sure that drops the Pelicans to the 8 seed in the West, and the pick would end up at around 18?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 2, 2018 -> 03:55 PM) Do some reading. Your knowledge is outdated. Recent Pope's have completely disowned those ideas, falling much more in line with the actual biblical text. http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/200806/...magdalene-27585 http://www.osservatoreromano.va/en/news/mary-magdalene Thanks for sharing those. As a raised Catholic, now agnostic, I had no idea how much the narrative around Mary Magdalene has changed. Really interesting stuff.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 2, 2018 -> 01:42 PM) What will be interesting to me is that this is mainly pitching driven, and not position player driven in terms of the talent they have acquired. Hopefully the volatility of pitching is overcome by the Sox ability to scout and develop pitching. We are still fairly thin in quality positional talent in the system for a team that wants to be a world champ in short time. I disagree that this has been mainly pitching driven. I'm lumping Robert into this because he fits the timeframe, and I'm limiting this to the main pieces in the big trades. Sale - Moncada, Kopech Eaton - Gio, Lopez Q - Eloy, Cease Robertson, et al. - Rutherford FA - Robert So that's a pretty even split on pitching vs. hitting on the acquisition side, and it trends to hitting when you add in the last 2 drafts. I see the point that the organization is still thin on position talent, but compared to where the position talent in the system was pre-Sale trade, it's astronomically better. There's definitely a greater margin for error on the pitching side, and the rebuild really needs Moncada/Eloy/Robert to all hit. But I just don't see the narrative that this is a pitching driven talent accumulation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2018 -> 04:04 PM) "I like taking the guns early," President Trump says. "Take the guns first, go through due process second." Imagine the s***storm from conservatives if Obama had said that. For the record, the Fox News story on the meeting does not include that quote. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/28...ty-session.html Thought that was interesting... not surprising, but interesting.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 26, 2018 -> 11:07 AM) And to keep trusting the people who are telling you to trust them to keep you safe apparently. What are you arguing for here? I can't tell. Are you honestly arguing that because law enforcement failed, we need to have more guns in the hands of people with significantly less training?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 20, 2018 -> 01:05 PM) Its a well established talking point. More guns means more safety because bad guys always find weapons easily. Ugh. I hate that talking point, and I think the most offensive part of it is the idea that we can sort humanity into "good guys" and "bad guys." Everyone is technically a "good guy" with a gun until they do something that makes them a bad guy...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 20, 2018 -> 09:15 AM) Yeah....re-read my post, you didn't get what i'm saying. That stat is dishonest only because it carries a different definition of "school shooting" than "person brings gun to school during school hours and starts shooting." With that being said, I tend to agree with you that people should be very careful about throwing that "18 school shootings" number around without context (seems like they define it as "weapon discharges on school grounds").

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 16, 2018 -> 03:40 PM) Again I ask - who cares? Fox News got upset when Obama wore a tan suit or when John Kerry or whoever it was (maybe Obama?) forgot his American Flag pin. Seems like the voters cared with the Lock Her Up stuff. I tend to think that Obama telling Facebook to get rid of pro-Trump comments is exactly the type of thing that gets the Conservative base out to vote.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 16, 2018 -> 02:50 PM) Which I never understood. The dude campaigned for her (or at least made a few speeches here and there). He already has a bias. Who cares? Trump made a huge campaign point of the fact that the Obama administration should have, but didn't, charge Hillary Clinton with a crime. And he seemed to receive a ton of support for that! Now, imagine the headlines on Fox News "OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TELLS FACEBOOK TO TAKE DOWN PRO-TRUMP COMMENTS!!!!!" It would have been a bloodbath.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 16, 2018 -> 02:58 PM) True, I guess i'm assuming that Zuckerberg would want to help his liberal friends. But as always, the almighty dollar always trumps (ba-doom-ching) politics. Yeah, Facebook is a publicly traded company and was in 2016. Zuckerberg's duty of loyalty is to his shareholders, not to his liberal friends.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 16, 2018 -> 02:25 PM) So... (1) the stories i'm reading state that this stuff started in 2014, before Trump even declared his intent to run. So neither the Obama admn nor the Hillary camp saw any of this coming and/or they failed to stop it. I mean the Obama admn specifically....they're buddy buddy with Silicon Valley. How does no one call up Zucker and say "hey, stop these fake websites/groups from spreading false news on your site." (2) I have to believe if the DOJ/FBI has dirt on Trump and collusion they would have presented it before, or at the same time, as these indictments. And in fact i'm sure they tried to get some of these people to flip for testimony before the indictments came down. I still don't see much more than greedy, immoral morons running a government that they have no business running and they're either ignoring and/or not aware of certain protocols and laws. That's even more evidence to show that they shouldn't be in power, but it's not proving collusion. (3) What exactly has Russia gained? I'm seeing a bunch of crap on twitter that Putin was afraid of Hillary, but I find that hard to believe. I could see him maybe thinking that Trump would be dumb (accurate!) but thus far, hasn't the Trump admn increased the sanctions on Putin? What have they gotten out of this other than to get the country more pissed off and divided? edit: i guess on 3 it's a perfect Trumpism. He signed the new sanction legislation into law but then publicly said he wouldn't enforce it. On (1), hasn't it been pretty well established that the Obama administration was falling all over itself to avoid the appearance of any bias in the run up to 2016? Could you imagine the outcry on the Right if the Obama administration tried to stop Facebook posts that were spreading *allegedly* false news that favored the Republican side of the aisle?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 15, 2018 -> 10:58 AM) Theres literally no other use for the gun. It was designed to kill as many people as possible. If you have one because "it's fun to shoot," it should never leave the range. If I remember right, Australia's gun laws are something like that.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 15, 2018 -> 10:03 AM) The ACLU would have a field day if the FBI obtained a warrant to search this kids house over a comment on the internet. Unless there was more that the FBI knew, such as interviews with students overhearing things he was saying, there's no way to legally get into his house to find his guns and/or take them away. The second this kid got mental health treatment he should have been flagged and prevented from ever owning/buying guns until he was cleared by a doctor. That should be some easy gun legislation that the majority of people could support. Jenks, I completely agree with the first paragraph. The second paragraph is, IMO, really important. But it needs to go further. The feds SHOULD be able to remove firearms that were previously purchased from people who are flagged as mental health risks, or otherwise as security risks. Make them keep the firearms under lock and key at a gun club or something along those lines. If someone's mental health deteriorates, there's nothing that can be done at present about the guns they already possess...

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 14, 2018 -> 11:29 AM) I will say it is surprising that Trump's alleged affair isn't getting more air time. Maybe it's just a product of the constant scandal, red alert, corporate news media blasting the sirens too often. Personally, I am not concerned with who a person is or isn't having sex with or rather who he/she should or shouldn't be having sex with. Especially when it pertains to something that happened years ago. I also don't buy the idea that a leader has to be representative of their voters. At least that never seems to happen. Trump's base is religious. Should he also be religious? Obama's base was people receiving aid from the government. Should he have also received aid? These people are politicians. It's their job to lie. Trump ran on running the government like a business, stopping the BS in the middle east and ending the pay for play capitalism. Trump has increased spending, emboldened the military and gave Saudi Arabia billions of weapons so they can bomb a cholera-ridden Saudi Arabia. Obama ran on protecting whistleblowers, closing Gitmo and ending the two wars. He attacked whistleblowers unlike any president before, Gitmo is still operating and he not only expanded the two wars but started another five. These people are liars and scumbags by trade. It's not partisan, it's not right and it definitely shouldn't be surprising. That base of voters demonize Democrats for not being religious enough. I mean, they went after Obama for being a secret Muslim. If they attack someone as unfit for office because of their moral character, it is hypocritical to look the other way when it's the guy on their own team who does not live up to their standard of morality.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2018 -> 11:25 AM) I get thinking that Dems or people in general are only enraged when its the opposite party doing something, but the very concept of family values are woven deep into the thread of the conservative platform. Adultery, divorce, and prostitution goes directly against that. This. It would be hypocritical for me to say that Donald Trump is unfit to lead because he had an affair (he's unfit to lead for a whole host of other reasons). Sex between consenting adults, I don't care! But it is decidedly not hypocritical for me to point out that the the party of Family Values seems to only care about Family Values when they are campaigning against godless Democrats. Pointing out hypocrisy in someone else is not in itself hypocritical.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2018 -> 11:50 AM) Nicely done. How is that link from SS politicizing anything?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 01:08 PM) It would be one thing if he got to the guy, but he didn't. That monster not only committed these crimes, but has zero remorse for what he did. I hope he fears for his life every minute that he's in prison. An attempt is still a crime. I'm not saying the guy should be charged (and if charged, there are certainly mitigating factors), but it certainly isn't the judge's role to tell the DA not to charge. And the Court certainly should not be making statements on the record that they are ok with an attempted assault on an inmate. It's also a sensitive point here, because Nassar's punishment is that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. It should not include fearing for his life every minute that he's in prison. It should not include fear of being raped in prison (which you did not state, but I have seen in plenty of places regarding Nassar). Even if Nassar earned hell on Earth while he was in prison, plenty of inmates do not, and a prison environment that encourages inmates living in fear doesn't have the capability to pick and choose which inmates live in fear.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 01:54 PM) I don't get how that response equates some sort of inconsistency. If you think the House Intel Committee releasing info on corruption within the FBI is "Republicans trying to silence transparency" I am not sure we're living in the same world. Here's the problem: 1) You have given this memo a degree of credibility from the start. Above, you give the memo credibility because you just flat out say that it's "releasing info on corruption within the FBI." 2) The vote to release the memo was strictly across party line. The Rs voted for the release, the Ds voted against. So the Democrats disagreed with the memo's credibility. 3) The Republicans then voted to deny Democrats the ability to release a memo with their position on Nunes' memo. So, you are all for releasing this memo in the name of transparency, but you can't be bothered to care about the release of information that diminishes the credibility of the memo from the other side of the aisle. For a guy who claims to be all about the facts, and independent thought, you don't seem to care about getting both sides of the story here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 01:50 PM) Again, if this judge opens a window to some sort of appeals process because of ego, that would be the absolutely worst possible thing that could happen. It would just start the sentencing over again though. Nassar pled guilty - this wasn't a trial with a judge making pretty blatantly biased decisions. I'm not sure that it would be worth Nassar's time and effort to appeal the sentencing since he already has 60 years from the federal case - even to the extent that the judge's conduct opened the door for an appeal. But I agree - making the victims go through the sentencing process again because of the judge's conduct would be the worst thing for the victims. Lock Nassar away, get him out of spotlight, and let the victims heal.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 2, 2018 -> 01:10 PM) Good for her. Disagree. Convicted defendants are entitled to rights - including the right not to be attacked by a victim in court. Sentencing hearings - particularly in cases like this or in violent crimes - are extremely emotional settings. If you start drawing lines that attempts to attack the defendant in open court aren't going to be punished... that's really bad.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 12:47 PM) Has StrangeSox? Have you? Republicans say it's bad for Democrats. Democrats are saying it's inaccurate. How it is it disingenuous? The day the story broke no one around here mentioned it (can't imagine why) and I brought it up. I didn't make any personal claims. I didn't say anything partisan. StrangeSox is shooting down every aspect of the memo when it hasn't even been released yet. I don't know what the gossip column at Salon is pumping into his head but I am going to wait until it's released to make any judgement. It would seem like you would need the actual document to judge it but sometimes the partisan stuff gets in the way for people. It's disingenuous because you made a judgment on the memo with your post on January 19 - namely that it "would expose corruption that would lead to the end of careers for lifer politicians." Your initial post on the subject made a judgment on what was contained in the memo without you having seen the memo. It's disingenuous to then turn around and say that reports on the memo two weeks later can't be given credibility until people have read the memo.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2018 -> 10:01 AM) Rabbit has a point. None of us have read it, so right now its all hearsay. It's a bit disingenuous for Rabbit to be asking everybody to pump the brakes on the memo when he posted this on January 19 about the very same memo... "The House Intelligence Committee, the group that had their Twitter suspended yesterday, is said to be possessing the memo that would expose corruption that would lead to the end of careers for lifer politicians."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2018 -> 02:21 PM) SF will wipe thousands of marijuana convictions off the books This is really good. Decriminalization and legalization are good, but they don't directly help the people already sitting in prison. Or the people with a marijuana conviction keeping them from finding gainful employment. Agreed that this is really good.