Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Nov 18, 2015 -> 09:40 PM) Sorry, he seems like a good kid, but he's not the type of player that plays on a good team. So early to be putting my Alma Mater on the "pay no mind list", but they are just so hurt and not good. What are you smoking? He's a guy with size that can shoot from range. And he showed to be pretty mobile running the break. He looked great for being a freshman. JCL looked like the real deal too, just needs to work on his ball handling and defense. I was pissed last night, but i'm a little more encouraged for the future. Finke and JCL look legit. Hill can still be a star. Black is still disappointing, not much growth in the game IQ department. Thorne had an awful game. And they were relying on heavy minutes from a walk on. All on the road against a pretty solid team led by one of the best players in the country. I don't think either of these losses will be bad ones, but they still hurt the tourney resume. Hopefully this is a team that's going to continue to grow into something good, much like Purdue last year.

Sigh...

Thorne can't buy a bucket

This Illinois team is ... not good.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Nov 18, 2015 -> 03:52 PM) The TSA is definitely a problem. There are many lines of work out there that won't let gross incompetence and general ineptitude stop you from having a long and successful career; the TSA should not be one of them in this day and age. But we're in for a hell of a time if any dumb b**** can turn a plane around because all the tarrists are playing Angry Birds on their iPhones. Again, you say this like it happens all the time but it doesn't. You're also basing this "crazy racist women pissing her pants in fear of non-white person breathing" stance on one news report that got one quote from the woman. She told the flight attendant who also made the decision to talk to the captain, who also made the decision to go back to the gate. I suspect something more than just watching something on a phone was happening since the flight attendant took action and they took multiple people off the plane, including a guy that wasn't with or related to the others.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 18, 2015 -> 03:46 PM) Your concern for your safety should be rational and reasonable. Just by getting on a plane, getting into your car this morning or walking down the street, you're taking a far greater risk than your potential to be killed by Islamic terrorists. If you have a gun in your house, the risk that poses is exponentially higher than the risk of being killed by ISIS. There are so many bigger risk factors in your life that you accept on a daily basis. True, but in those situations, i'm generally in control of what happens. In a plane or on a train i'm at the mercy of what other people do or don't do. I can live with the results when it's based mostly on my choice. So basically the "if you see something, say something" mantra is a bunch of nonsense and we shouldn't do anything. That's what you're saying here. The terrorists have won! because we're more aware of our surroundings and we think slightly different now than we did 30 years ago. If brown people were being reported 100 times a day, I would agree with you. But those events of people being wrongly suspected of something are rare. It's not some huge epidemic. After basically all these attacks over the years, nothing in my day to day life has changed, and it's the same for 99.9% of people out there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 18, 2015 -> 03:16 PM) I wonder how long you'd appreciate that "extra citizen-response" if you were the one being dragged off of your flight for questioning because you were watching the news on your phone. The best course of action is to stop the collective pants-wetting. Having a plane brought back to the gate because someone was watching TV while being brown is not "being overly cautious," it's being hysterically paranoid. Unlike you my concern over offending someone doesn't trump my concern for my own safety and the safety of my family. You may be right and she may have completely overreacted, I don't know, I didn't see what she saw. However, I'd still rather be safe than sorry and that's the mentality we should all have.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Nov 18, 2015 -> 01:26 PM) Doubt it. There was another incident on a Spirit Airlines flight from Baltimore to Chicago; a woman saw a middle eastern looking guy watching the news on his phone before takeoff and she "like literally thought that the plane was like gonna blow up, it was like the scariest moment of her life." Plane turned back to the gate, the passenger and (presumably) those he was travelling with were escorted off the plane by police, and the flight was delayed for 3 hours as passengers and luggage were re-screened. The 4 passengers were questioned and released after it was concluded that watching the news on one's smart phone was unlikely to take an airplane out. After something like Paris happens, people take on this sheep mentality that anyone or anything might be a terrorist out to get them- for some reason this is amplified if you throw air travel into the equation. Obviously people who look even remotely middle eastern (whether they are or not) are the primary beneficiaries of this mindset, but even that tree over there looks like it's up to no good, better keep an eye on it in case it's a terrorist! This is an example of the terrorists winning. It's pathetic. So the best course of action is to not do anything and pretend this stuff doesn't happen/doesn't exist, right? I mean I agree with you to a point, people overreact. But when it comes to things like air travel, where hundreds of lives are at risk, i'm fine with people being overly cautious. It's been proven over and over again that the TSA basically sucks at what they do (http://www.today.com/news/can-tsa-find-hid...dercover-t56626), so I'll happily take an extra citizen-response that may avert a disaster.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 03:58 PM) I think that the State Department is competent enough to spot ISIS agents. If they aren't, it's a moot point because they can flood in through so many points that being concerned about a relatively tiny number of refugees in a flood of foreigners regularly coming into the country is silly. I trust the State Dept as much as I trust Homeland Security. Will they do their jobs the vast majority of the time? Yes. Will they find everything? Are their processes fool proof? No. "There are easier ways to come into the country so let's ignore this one" is also a pretty bad idea from a security perspective. Assuming that people X, Y and Z are minimal risks is a pretty bad idea from a security perspective. I sure hope we're doing both. Again, this would be more persuasive if these people would be dead tomorrow if we didn't allow them in. But they're not. And putting the program on hold in the short term isn't going to create a humanitarian crisis.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 03:44 PM) Your entire evaluation of the State Department's refugee review process is based on a few sentences in an article from Time. Your understanding may not be comprehensive. Focusing on Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS when the attackers were a bunch of Europeans is pretty dumb and xenophobic. What the heck are you basing your total trust on? Have you been reading the vetting process manual? We don't know the details at all. And i'm saying there are complete unknowns that NO program could find. And Syria is the epicenter of Islamic terrorism at the moment, is it not? Just like people trying to board planes and blow them up was/is after 9/11. It makes sense to key in on certain people/situations in the moment. Refugees from Japan or whatever don't really fit the profile of people we're concerned about in 2015 from a national security perspective. I don't disagree about the theater, but at the start it was a pretty reasonable and understandable change given the circumstances. We didn't argue "there are easier ways to kill us!" as a reason not enhance security to try to make sure it doesn't happen again. It would have been stupid to NOT make security changes.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 03:33 PM) Honestly, this annoys me very much. The US is a very important and influential global policy player. If the US refuses to come to bat because of our enhanced risk-aversion to violence-via-terrorism (vs our incredible risk-acceptance to every other form of violence), while the problem escalates to crisis for our allies, what standing would we have to ask for any assistance the next time we need their resouces, or airspace, or bases? It's so shortsighted. Are you kidding me? We should accept an increased risk of harm so other countries know we're there with them? Pretty sure 9/11 was a good starting point to the "hey they hate us and want to kill us to!" club. We started the damn club.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 03:22 PM) Thanks for supporting my point? I think you're thinking of the Eurozone screening process, which is essentially just checking if there's an international warrant out for them. The US process is substantially different from that. I'm seeing bunch of PR language there and not much substance. Seems to me the process is essentially the same - take down information, vet it on the databases we have, do interviews, and that's that. Again, no stopping anyone that doesn't have much of a record to check back at home (how good can that be in a country in the midst of a civil war for 4-5 years now?) and who is now on a mission to come here and either recruit or commit acts on his/her own. Even if it's a 1% increased risk, it's dumb to do it. It's got nothing to do with xenophobia. It's just smart. After 9/11 we didn't decide against more airline security by arguing "Well there are easier ways to kill people than stealing plans and flying them into buildings!" It was a known risk (much like Syria is now the center of Islamic terrorism) that we acted on. It made sense to do so, as a precaution. Over time can that and should that change? Sure. I don't have a problem with it right now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 03:16 PM) That's the Eurozone process, not the US process. http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 03:10 PM) The risk is minuscule and the real human harm of turning refugees away is large. If you have zero trust in the State Department's ability to vet someone, you should be advocating for completely sealed borders. No student, work or travel visas for anyone. There's obviously risk from French and Belgians, anyway. Student and work can be verified though. Random refugee cannot. Is there ever 100% certainty? Of course not. But again, if there's a risk, why chance it? What's the "real human harm" when half are denied anyway, and the other half have to wait 1-2 years? It's not some immediate "let me in or I die tomorrow" situation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 03:06 PM) The screening process is more rigorous than any other way to get into this country. The attacks in France were carried out mainly by French and Belgian nationals. Those guys could have flown to the US on their legitimate French and Belgian passports no problem. There's also always the issue of home-grown terrorists in this country. Now why would they try to go through the 18-24 month process with in-depth screening and security checks and a pretty small shot of admission anyway (we've only taken several thousand out of millions of refugees to this point) when there are much, much easier ways to get in? That screening process sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Basically check a list we already have to see if they're on it, that's it. We have no way of knowing if they're already brainwashed pyschos on a mission.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 03:04 PM) Well if you want to get someone into the United States, the easiest way would be to recruit a US citizen and then have them return to the US. The second easiest way would be to recruit someone from a country friendly with the US (Turkey) and have them visit the US with a valid passport issued by Turkey. A refugee would be one of the worst ways to send someone to the US as unlike the other ways they would actually have to apply to the US for that status and thus would be much easier to track/find. Lets just all be thankful terrorists are for the most part not really bright or great at what they do. If they were they could inflict extreme amount of casualties with almost no way to prevent it. Haven't we been arresting people that are doing this? Not sure that's the "easy" route. The easy route is to have someone here try to convince others already here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 02:51 PM) Ok but that doesn't really address the point at all! That one can much more easily come from any number of countries that the US routinely issues travel visas for. If ISIS wants to do something in the US, there are much, much easier ways of going about it than trying to get in as a refugee. Just because it's easier another way doesn't mean there isn't an increased risk. Why expose ourselves even more to people who are less likely to be known/tracked? I like how someone on the news this morning was trying to calm people by citing to the fact that background checks are done to these people before they come to the country. Yeah, i'm sure a Syrian refugee has an extensive history that's been recorded and is easily obtainable. I'm sure someone from the State Dept can just call up Syrian's State Dept. for paperwork.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 01:17 PM) Gov. Jay Inslee: 'Washington welcomes those seeking refuge' Almost all of the attackers were European nationals who could easily have gone almost anywhere in the world, including the US, on a tourist visa. Actual refugees face much, much more intense screening and scrutiny to come here. Only takes one.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 12:31 PM) Mike Vick went to jail and gets blasted while Roethlisberger got ignored. Puppies > Women apparently. Well, let's put it in the actual context. It was puppies being murdered for sport, along with other dogs being bred/raised for the sole purpose of killing other dogs. And all of it was proven. With Roeth you had a woman who voluntarily partied/drank with him, hung out with him, and then was allegedly assaulted by him. The medical exam was inconclusive and IIRC she stopped cooperating with the police, so charges were never brought. I think the difference is the availability of evidence, not which crime or victim is worse.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 11:35 AM) I believe he missed only one of those bank shots, and he was by far the best offensive player for the Bulls last night. So..... All but one looked ugly. I mean i'm happy he was making them, I just don't trust that he'll hit a shot. He should be driving and kicking, not shooting 20 footers.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 17, 2015 -> 10:46 AM) Bulls defense has been strong. Right now they are just so inconsistent. Niko was brutal as was the Bulls free throw shooting. Niko's D was just awful. Way too many easy 3's. Nikko is pretty worthless if he's not hitting shots. Rose still has the worst jump shot in the entire league. For a guy making so much money, and being out for so f***ing long, you'd think he would have developed one by now. I literally cringe anytime he shoots. "Trying" bank shots from 18 feet? Wtf?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 16, 2015 -> 09:17 PM) floor glues usually have elastomers to accommodate for expansion/contraction Hmm, I didn't know they made such a product.

Bulls trying to give this away

Do you really want to glue it down with the humidity we get?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 16, 2015 -> 02:48 PM) What are you talking about? He was moved to the security booth, was on the phone, and as soon as then evacuated him when they were able to. He's still looking at the game.