Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 03:37 PM) The potential downside of having heavily religious charities is that some of them will pull garbage like this: Kentucky shelter tosses out all women days before holidays because they tempt men with ‘ungodly’ sex Because he didn't want to run a charitable whore house?

Cats are the worst. That is all.

Sounds like the first trial on the Freddie Gray case will be a mistrial. Deadlocked after 2 days and 9 hours deliberating. Judge told the jury to keep trying.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 11:34 PM) Being down early to a horrible opponent is Hoiberg's MO When you're forced to play one of the worst starting PG's in the game...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 08:58 AM) The Trump candidacy has all but handed the White House to Hillary, which is just depressing. +100000000

So this is an interesting topic with my wife and I expecting #2. We're debating whether to do more daycare or find a nanny. Our son is 3.5. He's been in a daycare with a good curriculum since he was old enough to go. It's a structured daycare with a class schedule, even when they were infants, and it's not cheap. My son's 3 year old room is about $1,300/month. The newborn will be closer to $1,800. Combined that's a decent vacation home. Since I like to save money wherever possible, I've been trying to talk my wife into a nanny. It would probably be cheaper and more convenient, especially when the 3.5 year old starts school and gets into more outdoor activities (all of which start at 3 or 4pm in the afternoon....where do these parents work??) But we really like the structure that our daycare provides, as well as the HUGE social component. We have 7 kids in our group of friends. 2 stay at home with their mom or in-laws and it's readily apparent. Way behind in language and don't really play well in social groups. They're not dumb kids, they're just behind compared to the others. Nanny's/parents/in-laws have to be REALLY structured and have lesson plans and all that I think to get to the same level. But the question is, how much is that worth? If by 5-6 years old, they've caught up and they're all basically on the same level, that's a lot of money on school that could be spent elsewhere. My wife wants the daycare/teachers again. I say let's talk nanny, or at minimum, maybe part time nanny and 2-3 days a week at daycare. Get the benefit of both.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) I'm not going to lie...I miss my boy Thibbs. Loved that f***ing guy. I have no issues with Hoiberg (to soon to judge) but I loved Thibbs. I think the Bulls need to move Rose and find a way to get an elite point guard that can run the up-tempo style we want to run. No idea who we could get, but it would be nice. Probably need to see what sort of assets you can get for Pau and as sad as it is for me to say, Noah too. I think Taj / Portis / Niko have to stay as they all fit an up-tempo style. I'd deal Niko if someone was still in love with him (maybe for a point guard). Can we just cut Rose? I'm just tired of watching him. He just looks like he doesn't care way too much. I know its probably pure perception but god I can't stand him. I hope he becomes awesome again cause than I'll instantly change my opinion and enjoy watching him. Sad how fun he was to watch. I can't think of a player ever in the history of the game who you could like so much and than eventually not stand so much. I lot of it for me is his inability to finish. He gets close to the rim, but he's not trying to dunk on people like he used to. He's going through the motions and you can tell on just about every play.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 09:19 AM) f*** JVG I love JVG, but the constant Thibs backing/GarPax complaining has got to stop at some point, right? I mean it's getting really old. We get it, he was your buddy. "They were a Lebron fade away three in the corner from being up 3-1 in the conference finals. And you have to change course?" Yes, yes you do JVG.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 09:56 AM) It is insane and I think he's insane. His story is stupid and I don't find me being anymore sympathetic to him even if it's the 100% truth. Next week's episode should be great. Ha, yep, totally agree.

I didn't follow this story at all when it was in the news, so like the first season I'm 100% blind to what the "story" is. Unlike the first season, I can already tell that I don't see myself ever feeling sorry for this guy or at least feeling like I WANT him to be exonerated for being falsely accused. This guy was either a turncoat, or at minimum, one of the stupidest people ever. Leaving his platoon in the middle of the night to wonder around Afghanistan in order to expose that one of his superiors is an asshole? Really? That's the plan? No one is THAT stupid.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) It's unfair that the majority of my income and your income is generally taxed at a much higher rate than the income of the very wealthy. I don't disagree.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 12:25 PM) "we" are, but I think there's a moral argument to be made that we shouldn't be! The obvious end of that slippery slope is pro-chattel slavery arguments, which people made plenty of along those same exact lines. So there has to be somewhere between "worker collectives in control of the means of production!" and the antebellum South/modern Qatar, and if we're talking about capital concentration, capital mobility, wage exploitation etc it's at least relevant to discuss where we should fall on that line. I'm not saying there's an easy answer there, but saying "things would cost more if we paid people a fair wage!" isn't really a strong argument in my opinion (nor is it even necessarily true because it could also mean that we just have a little less hyper-concentration of wealth!) I don't disagree, but the same people complaining about how rich certain people are would also complain when those rich people charge them even more for the good, probably more than they could reasonably afford. Exploitation of labor benefits everyone, not just the rich, so I dunno why that's part of the argument about the rich being too rich.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 12:22 PM) You'd definitely get caught at $1500 because the casino sends a form in above a certain amount, $1k I think. I think the IRS would have that mismatch flagged automatically for them. i thought it was 10k, but maybe you're right. Point is, most people don't need to worry about it so there's nothing "unfair" about it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 12:21 PM) The tax oode didn't appear on tablets from the sky. Wealthy, powerful people use their wealth and power to protect their wealth and power, and the tax code reflects that. Everyone has to pay capital gains taxes, but most people have so few capital gains that it's not even relevant. Most of us get the overwhelming majority of our money from wage income. It's not a bulls*** tax, and eliminating it would be 1) a gigantic tax cut for the wealthy and 2) essentially allow people born wealthy to live their lives free of federal taxes entirely. I wouldn't be conceptually opposed to having some sort of threshold limit for when it kicks in or when it kicks to a higher rate, but again for most people there aren't really any capital gains to speak of so it's not relevant either way. Right, they were created by people in government who said "s***, we don't have money to spend! How do we get more of it??" Like most taxes, especially on a federal level, they're bulls***. Fastforward to today and the system would crumble without them but that doesn't mean that in theory they're a terrible idea. If we didn't have such high tax revenues maybe we wouldn't spend trillions of dollars on defense.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 12:10 PM) How far down that rabbit hole of "it's okay to exploit foreign labor and the environment because cheap consumer goods" are you willing to go? Well, we're all "ok" with quite a lot already!

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 12:15 PM) Yeah and lot of them probably have a loophole to not pay on that. The point is there is not a level playing field. If I don't pay taxes and I get caught, I'm going away because I'm a "nobody". You'd never get caught because you're a nobody. You'd only get caught if you won the main poker tournament with a prize of 10 million or something and then failed to pay taxes on it. Winning $1,500 bucks on the weekend, no one would ever know or find out.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 12:09 PM) Ok so that'd be an example of what petit first complained about, that they rigged the system and these guys cheat. It seems like you're basically agreeing with the underlying conclusion but just not the words used to express it? edit or are you arguing against capital gains being taxed at all, because lol How did they cheat? Both involve you using your after-tax income dollars to make money and then being taxed again. It's the same playing field - everyone has to pay it. And the rich clearly pay MORE of it. And yes, I am. It's a bulls*** tax just like taxing gambling winnings. Obviously there's a need for it now, but that tax should be waived for 90% of people it would apply to. There should be a minimum threshold before any tax kicks in.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 11:53 AM) iPhones cost about $200 to manufacture and retail at $600. There's supply chain, design etc. in there, but part of the reason that Apple is so profitable is that they make highly desirable electronics that they can sell at high margins due to cheap labor overseas. They were part of the group of tech companies conspiring to fix wages stateside on the engineering end, too! It's not just on the wages end that they get to cut costs, either. Workers rights, workplace safety and environmental regulations are much, much lower in the places that do most of our manufacturing. I guess I don't see $600 as being astronomical, especially in light of what the product allows you to do. And the reality is if those products are made here, they'd cost 3 times that much. Is everyone ok with that?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 11:49 AM) I believe those arguments are one in the same, Jenks! The only reason they do this is because it's allowed by the politicians. As I said before, I'm not advocating taking money from people I'm advocating leveling the playing field. Corporations and billionaires should not be able to hide money overseas. That money should be taxed appropriately. Here's a perfect example. I am a sports bettor and I have to pay bloody taxes on my winnings, mind you they have already been taxed because of my income. How on earth is that fair? Rich people get to dictate when they will or will not pay taxes in subtle sense. Sounds like you have an issue with capital gains taxes. I do to!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 11:48 AM) 1) On the bolded, then we're pretty much in agreement I think? I guess I don't particularly care if they should "feel obligated" or not if they're being taxed either way. 2) Again, I'm not putting zero value on what they've done or saying they only played a minor role. I'm saying that, by and large, the playing fields weren't level and they had a lot of rolls of the dice go in their favor. There's no Microsoft without Bill Gates, but Microsoft doesn't become the OS juggernaut if Gates' mom isn't on a foundation board with the CEO of IBM. Gates et al still needed to take advantage of these situations and have the right ideas ready when the opportunities presented themselves, of course. 3) Re: level playing field, no, society doesn't provide everyone alive the same opportunity. Most of these guys went to elite schools (Yale, Stanford, Wharton, Harvard, etc.) which can provide you with all sorts of access and connections you wouldn't otherwise have. They were mostly born into upper-middle class or upper class families. Being the son of the Congressman is going to open a lot of doors that someone like you or I wouldn't get through. 4) I'm not against IP protection, but I'm pointing out that it's something created/allowed by society to which they owe the existence of their fortune. That's less true of people like the Waltons than of the tech industry billionaires, obviously. I guess I'm more taking issue with the common "rags/middle class-to-riches" mythos that can surround "self-made" billionaires. They may not have inherited the majority of their fortunes, but they were still born with an awful lot of advantages. There are some true rags-to-riches stories, like Sheldon Adelson, and it's kinda weird that the article didn't highlight those guys in the first place. 1) I just disagree with Obama and the whole "personal responsibility" angle. You don't owe society anything. Is it nice to give back? Yes. Should you be looked upon favorably if you do? Absolutely. But I don't all the time. You don't all the time. We can say "oh well if i had an extra 100 million to waste!" but the reality is when I made $6 bucks an hour in high school having a lawyer salary seemed like a crazy amount of extra cash to spend, and the reality is you just pay for bigger and better things. The same thing goes with rich people. "Necessities" and "luxury" quickly change meanings the higher up the bracket you go. 2/3) I guess I don't see the value in pointing this out. If that's your definition of the playing field, nothing you ever do or implement from the perspective of the gov't can ever solve this problem. People grow up with stupid/s***ty/dumb/awful parents. They lose the genetic lottery. No one can help that. Everyone in this country is given the keys to succeed. Whether outside forces put up larger barriers for some more than others is not on society. That's on your family. Hopefully kids who grow up in those environments learn that and then in the next generation don't make the same mistakes. Sadly, instead of thinking that way, most of the people in this country immediately demand more help and blame someone else.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Dec 10, 2015 -> 09:47 AM) Hiding money overseas and using cheap labor to make goods to sell to Americans at astronomical prices. If the 19 century rich had the international world we did today, they would do the exact same thing. This is nonsense too. What goods do we as Americans buy at "astronomical prices?" Goods in our country are INSANELY cheap given what goes into making them. I mean I have no problem closing any tax loopholes for multi national corps, and i'm totally on board with penalizing companies that use non-American labor/manufacturing (or conversely, heavily benefiting those that do), but that's a different argument.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 05:22 PM) Yes, I did. Look at their own listed examples: Bill Gates' parents were successful, wealthy lawyers who sent him to elite schools and had connections to the CEO at IBM (who gave Microsoft their first break). Phil Knight's father was a successful lawyer-turned-publisher, though Knight's marketing genius and cheap overseas labor really is what did it for him. Buffett's father was a wealthy businessman and Congressman. Stephen Schwarzman came from successful parents as well. Aside from Knight, the rest of that article's "self-made" examples all attended elite schools. He chose some poor examples but the study found 70% of uber wealthy people didn't come from wealth. Who cares if they attended elite schools? Maybe they earned that? edit: I guess the language isn't clear. 20% came from poor/little wealth backgrounds. About 70% didn't come from "very rich families." So that could be anyone from just above "little wealth" up to "a good amount of wealth but not very rich." Ok, so they got lucky with timing. Everyone alive has that same luck. Everyone's playing on the same field at the same time. And are you saying you don't agree with any IP protection? But at the end of the day, the important decisions/breakthroughs/creations/ideas are because of them, solely. Who cares if they needed others or worked with others? End of the day, without Zuckerberg there is no Facebook. Without Gates there is no Microsoft. That's just a bunch of nonsense. Society provided everyone alive at the same time as these guys the same playing field. I'm already on record saying you can tax the piss out of them if you must, I don't mind that at all, but I think it's moronic to claim that 1) these guys aren't self-made and somehow played only a minor role in their success and 2) that they should feel obligated to give back. Do you give back your extra earnings to society? Sure, but you seem to put basically no value on what they've done, as if anyone with a brain could have done it. It's not ALL them, but it's certainly more than luck/timing.

IMO they need to try benching Rose and letting him dominate 2nd units. This team plays 100% better when Butler is the alpha dog and carries the team. When Rose is in, Butler becomes passive. Gasol has regressed this year. His defense has been atrocious. Noah still isn't an offensive threat (other than with the pass). Taj isn't a 30/min a night type of player. Snell is terrible. Niko is pretty average if he isn't hitting shots. The only bright spot is McBuckets gets more and more legit each game. I'm not sure why he isn't averaging more minutes. He played 26 last night. Why isn't he over 30 consistently?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 9, 2015 -> 05:03 PM) 1) They're still mostly from wealthy or at least well-off and well-connected families. 2) A lot of those guys' wealth is built on IP law protections (Zuckerberg, Gates) or other public projects (e.g. the internet), which means they owe society for that in the first place. 3) By and large, their wealth is still derived from the labor of others. Did you read the link? 1) Most are NOT from wealthy families, according to that study. I'm sure the vast majority come from "good" homes versus "bad" homes, but so do tens of millions of other people that don't become so insanely wealthy and successful. 2) Sure, but both of those guys had ideas that no one else had and/or perfected those ideas better than others. I don't think they "owe" society anything. Seems like a very odd way of looking at it. Not only do you completely devalue everything they've done/created, but it's their personal responsibility to give back to society. Liberals™. 3) And the same is true with literally everyone on the face of the earth with a job. You make money because you perform a service that someone else is willing to pay for. You also use the labor of others in performing your job (phones, computers, cars, electricity, water, etc.) Without them, you wouldn't earn a living.

The Revenant getting some really good reviews. I'm excited to check it out for the cinematography alone.