Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 13, 2015 -> 09:05 PM) Brian, my take is, good for you on getting to bang a truly hot woman. But you are better off not being with her. You said it all with the word "trainwreck." That's cool you got to bang a perfect 10. Are you a modelesque type guy who gets a lot of 10s? Good for u. I don't condone cheating and feel guilty that I didn't tell him not to cheat. I did finally tell him, "Maybe you should start a new leaf and go to counseling and never cheat again. Just tell yourself it was a good run, I got caught, she forgave me and now I'm gonna be a good husband.' He told me that won't work as even though he got caught he's still seeing the mistress. He said he loves his wife and loves his kids but he's an addict and needs to cheat. His wife is so nice. She doesn't want to leave him. The kids are so cute. It's a perfect little family. But he said he can't stop cheating. I do feel badly because at the wedding the minister challenged the congregation to "help these 2 avoid the pitfalls of marriage." It's like the minister knew he was gonna cheat. I haven't done a very good job of stopping it. This guy has been to Vegas with me and friends and on all the trips he gets hookers when we would never think of doing that. He makes a good buck and is a good guy but he cheats. What if he gets another woman pregnant? What if he gets a disease and gives it to his wife? Sounds like your friend is a giant selfish asshole. If I were you i'd tell his wife he's still cheating. At least give her the facts so she can leave and take the kids with her.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 13, 2015 -> 05:00 PM) Saying stupid things and leading the primary polling aren't the same thing. Yeah, Kucinich was an oddball, but he was always an also-ran who never really came close. They do not really compare to the level of support and vacuousness that Bachmann, Cain, Trump etc. have. They didn't have a legacy candidate like Hillary though. Get her name recognition out of there, have a clean slate of basically unknown national candidates and the situation is much more similar.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 13, 2015 -> 03:04 PM) There really hasn't been the same sort of clown show on the Democrat side that was the 2012 Republican primaries (Bachmann, Cain, insert-flavor-of-the-week) or how this year's is starting out for them again (trump, mainly). edit: whether or not you agree with the story some are putting forth regarding what Trump represents, Matt Bai still misstates (or misunderstands) what other people are actually saying about him. Um, John Edwards? Joe Biden? Dennis Kucinich? They've all sad stupid things, repeatedly. It just doesn't get the play.

QUOTE (Joshua Strong @ Aug 13, 2015 -> 01:32 PM) A Deadwood movie is in conversations between HBO and David Milch Would love for it to happen, but so unlikely. What are the odds the timing (and money) will work out?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 10:13 AM) Martin Scorsese and Leo DeCaprio are collaborating on "Devil in the White City". It was a great book, I will see the movie for sure. http://variety.com/2015/film/news/leonardo...ity-1201567113/ I am excited for this. I'm also interested to see how they can weave the World's Fair and Holmes' story together. Easier to do in book form.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 04:31 PM) Getting the insurance requirements up to speed has been a major step in many of the states where those programs are now allowed. And getting rid of all the licensing medallion bulls*** on the city side, which is nothing but a revenue generator, is keeping costs low for you and I.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 04:18 PM) no I'm pretty sure liberal bloggers and twittereerererss aren't going after lobbyists and votes edit: is there a big taxi lobby out there anyway? I was referring more to the actions of NYC to try and save the taxi industry from Uber, which is clearly all about votes and money (via lobbying) and nothing to do with good public policy or what people want.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 11, 2015 -> 03:46 PM) Labor exploitation is really the core of it I think. or lobbyists and votes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 04:42 PM) 3. There have been over 200 mass shootings in 2015 already. 2. The small chance of you having something to defend yourself against a guy with a gun versus the effectiveness of keeping that guy from having a gun in the first place? Sure, a mass shooting a day is a reasonable sacrifice for that, right? 1. Do you really think it's that hard for me to find examples of people who shot in what they think is self-defense and then killed someone by accident? In a single year there's about 15,000 people injured in accidental shootings and 600 or so killed. There are plenty of easily located examples of people shooting family members that they mistook for intruders, that's an easy one. The real interesting one though is the "self defense" one that is the George Zimmerman case. Although the studies are out of date because we stopped funding them to appease the NRA because every study you do on gun violence makes gun ownership look like an idiotic decision, there are several studies from the 1990s/2000s that suggest most of the "self defense" gun usages are cases that escalate, like the one we discussed here a couple years ago where 2 guys got in an argument in a pizza parlor line and wound up pulling guns on each other. 3. Accidental shootings are different from vigilante accidents that you're so concerned about. They involve all sorts of situations from kids using guns they're not experienced using to accidental discharges, hunting accidents, etc. We're talking about, in the midst of a mass shooting, what is the likelihood that everyone in the theater will shoot each other because they become incompetent with their guns. What are the chances that someone innocent gets shot by someone trying to do a good thing. I'm not denying that it may happen, but it's a weak to argue that it's the only, inevitable outcome when there's very little evidence to back that claim up. We can point to car accident statistics, but that doesn't mean every person over 80 WILL run someone over. It happens, but it's not the guaranteed end. 2. Great, print words on a piece of paper that ban guns from mass murderers. History shows that bans work and people always follow the law. Better yet, living in dream world, let's just all hope real hard that all the guns in this country (world?) disappear into thin air. Problem solved! 1. The majority of which are committed by criminals in a pre-meditated fashion. Not the situations we're talking about here. But even still, i'm sure the victims in those 200+ shootings would have loved to have the means to defend themselves.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 04:13 PM) the death blow Lol, I concede defeat!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 04:06 PM) How about I quite simply turn your argument around and say "how many mass shootings have been stopped in progress by a "good guy with a gun" who wasn't a trained officer? Yet this whole thread keeps repeating that fantasy of how you'll be that person. Maybe, just maybe, that fantasy isn't worth a few hundred mass shootings? 1) Mass shootings or not, I can at least point to examples where guns have saved lives, which kills your presumption that guns always make things worse. You can't cite me ONE EXAMPLE of your premise that people will start shooting others accidentally. 2) The argument isn't so much that "hey i'll be the hero!" It's much more, "if i'm in that situation, at least I have SOMETHING to defend myself. I'm not at the complete mercy of a killer." I don't think anyone is under the delusion that they'll suddenly become James Bond in a fire fight. 3) A few hundred mass shootings? That number is going to dramatically increase now? Other than your fear and illogical assumptions, what is this based on? Weren't we supposed to have fire fights in the streets all the time btw? Has that happened yet? We've had CC in Illinois for over 2 years now. Where's that big uptick in murders?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 03:58 PM) 24 million people watched this debate (I was not one of them). This is more people then has ever watched a primary debate before. What should we take from that? People like a circus show. I actually would like to applaud Fox News, btw, and others should too. That was not a bunch of soft ball questions. They were hard on the candidates they were talking to. Trump especially. Questions about gay marriage, expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, Black Lives Matter, etc. and the answers were, from Kasich anyway, not extreme but quite moderate. And I liked how they backed off from the last decade and added "you know, like Reagan did" to appease the crazies. I only watched bits and pieces and read more stuff today, but it seems like Kasich killed it, Trump was entertaining but terrible, Paul warned about Iran, Christie invoked 9/11 to score points, Bush seemed the most polished and everyone else was forgettable.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 11:41 AM) Interesting article from Dan Wetzel regarding Brady and Goodell. Basically calls Goodell a liar. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell...409591-nfl.html Man that's a lot of words for a pretty minor, innocuous fact in a 20 something page finding.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 12:00 PM) Yes, thousands of people do successfully defend themselves with guns. But no one keeps stats on when someone tries and fails and winds up dead. The only stat we have is things like the FBI stats showing And yes, there are plenty of times when a person does hold someone at bay with a gun, but there are plenty of accidental shootings not caught in the criminal homicide list. Said with zero evidence to back it up. As Alpha pointed out before, don't you think if that situation happened in the last 10 years, even once, that anti-gun nuts would be screaming about it from the mountaintops? I've literally never heard of that happening, where a would-be vigilante ending up killing or hurting someone. Never. I'm sure it's happened, but obviously not to a degree that we hear about it as a legitimate problem.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 12:26 PM) I cringe every time they do a close-up on his face. Ventura is really bad too.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 09:54 AM) Jenks - how do you imagine this working in a theater shooting (the subject of this post). The shooter is at the back of the theater randomly shooting. It's dark, people are screaming and running to get away. If somebody is armed and the shooter is right next to them, yeah, certainly they could safely eliminate the threat. No argument from me there. But if somebody in the middle of the theater decides to fight back, they are firing over rows and rows of bystanders, in the dark. I'm no expert on marksmanship, but I have to imagine someone would have to be a really good shot or incredibly lucky to safely and effectively take down the shooter in that scenario. I've said this before and I'll say it again here in this thread. I don't have a problem with firearm ownership for sport, hunting, protecting crops/livestock, and even for home safety. But none of those scenarios add firearms to where I am. I'm incredibly against open-carry. I'm fine with conceal and carry if the testing requirements are strict enough (including mental health evaluations). There are middle grounds on firearms... people have a tendency not to look for them. I'm not saying it's a great situation. I don't even know that I am ok with it. But i'm open to it and I think the arguments that more people will die are based on nothing but myth. You're again assuming that someone with a gun will start shooting randomly in hopes of hitting the bad guy. I don't think the vast majority of people in those situations suddenly become morons with a gun. The logical assumption is that someone who has concealed carry is a big enough fan of guns that they recognize the gun's danger and have practiced with it. They know it's not a good idea to just start shooting into a crowd of people in hopes they hit the bad guy. They have to have a clean shot before they can take it and if they don't, they won't. 99% of my support of guns is for sport, hunting and crop/livestock/home protection. However, while I don't personally think i'll ever get CC or have the need to buy a handgun, who am I to prevent someone from doing that? I don't have a problem with some kind of mental health check/back ground check. I don't have a problem with some type of reasonable training/license requirement. I also, btw, think it should be 100% legal for an owner of a business to refuse entry to someone with a gun (just like they should be able to refuse entry to anyone, for any reason). If they go out of business, they go out of business. If they do fine, they do fine.

It's called hyperbole, but that's essentially his argument. Guns are so dangerous and people are so inept other people will die. It's based on nothing but his own fear and it's completely unfounded.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 08:48 AM) Frankly I do consider it an insult. I don't think that any person, even a well trained one, is going to figure out how to, under fire, pull out a weapon, take aim, in a crowded room, with people panicking, in a dark room, with loud sound being piped in around you, and actually hit the right person. Moreover, I question the judgment of anyone who thinks that is a shot they could take so much that I don't want them carrying a weapon in the first place. The idea that you'd be able to pull that shot off and hit the right person under fire is so far-fetched that I have no issue saying your judgment is flawed if you think you could pull that shot off. How often do things go wrong in war zones? How often do the wrong people get hit? You're saying you could pull off a shot as difficult as that and I'm just supposed to trust you. I can even give counter examples. The shooter in the case that started this thread was able to walk out of the theater without people recognizing he was the shooter. In the Arizona shooting of Gabby Giffords, a person carrying a concealed weapon was across the street and nearly shot the wrong person because there was a mob and chaos as people tried to tackle the shooter. There's zero reason to believe this hero scenario you're dreaming of actually happens, yet because it makes you feel good you can't let it go. Call that an insult if you want, but if you're dreaming about being the hero and you just push the consequences out of your mind because they're bad...then yes your judgment deserves questioning. Now turn it around the other way. I also don't believe we should die if we are going to movie theaters, or walking down the street, or wherever else. I also don't believe that untrained people who dream of the fantasy of how they're going to be the hero are going to do anything but make the situation worse, because there's virtually no evidence they do anything else. There are about as many cases of kids under 16 shooting themselves or others accidentally as there are of successful self defenses during the year. So I say, given that there's so little evidence this fantasy actually happens, the only way you're actually going to prevent these things is to stop letting every person get their hands on guns so easily. Until we do that, we're just going to have to put up with these things. Eventually it will happen that someone will stop one and the gun rights people will say this proves everything works, and then in another case someone will shoot two bystanders and that will prove nothing, and in the end we'll just put up with these shootings, with thousands of bodies per year, we'll pretend that having guns around makes us safer and we'll mourn the 7 year old who gets shot by the 5 year old who thought he had a toy and we'll eulogize the victims in the next mass shooting because that's easier than recognizing that there's a reason why it happened and that it could have been prevented or at least much less deadly if everyone in the country didn't have a tool for instant killing easily available. I provided a link a couple of weeks ago with hundreds if not thousands of examples involving people with guns who were able to prevent death or more deaths because of their actions. You, on the other hand, keep with the myth making that people with guns who think they can be heroes always, without a doubt, without exception, make situations worse. That's just factually inaccurate. When you can start citing some examples of "heroes" accidentally shooting and killing people in their attempts to stop the bad guy, then your point is well taken. Until then, your opinion on this is completely unfounded. Citing to friendly fire incidents with the military in battle is pretty poor. Again, cite some examples when you have soldiers in close quarters with a single gunmen, and the ensuing fire fight involves friendly fire. I bet that's an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Friendly fire incidents are almost always communication f***-ups, not "oh my god I have a gun and it has a mind of its own and its going to shoot every person in the room because they're so dangerous!"

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 02:56 PM) But it is proven to be a risk now to go see a movie. Are you at least going to bring a knife? There is a real and present danger and we should be allowed legally to arm ourselves. Scary to get bludgeoned by a hatchet when wanting to watch Trainwreck. Yeah there were 8 people in there so the guy with the hatchet woulda been shot. I don't understand why some of you don't want a level playing field. If some asshole wants to behead me in a movie theatre, I should be allowed to arm myself to make it a fair situation. It's pretty terrifying to be sitting there unarmed when some bastard decides to kill 50 people then kill himself. Because there's a realistic possibility that you will also snap and start killing people, and then others with guns will snap and start killing people and before you know it, all of you once sane and law abiding concealed carry moviegoers will be dead! Duh.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 11:27 AM) Don't we have enough 'real' victims? Why do Democrats have to keep making s*** up? Must be craving that coveted victim status. http://www.khou.com/story/news/2015/08/04/...-stop/31143361/ Never pass up an opportunity to pile on is playbook 101 for a politician.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 03:40 PM) Wallet>children Yeah cuz that's what abortion is all about. Clearly thinking about the kids first in these situations...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 04:20 PM) Well, he doesn't have a university degree, right? When's the last time we elected a president without that minimum level of education? Why are you so discriminatory? Too poor and un(highly)educated = terrible candidate?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 03:01 PM) This sounds like a theory from Nazi Germany...to deal with all their undesirable populations like Jews, Roma/gypsies, gays, mentally/physically disabled, etc. They didn't really have a choice....so, not the same.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 02:59 PM) Do you not see a difference between forced sterilization and voluntarily terminating a pregnancy? What do you think your proposal would actually accomplish other than shaming women who get abortions? There's nothing forced about it. If you want an abortion, you pay the cost. If you want the gov't to pay for it, you have to agree to it. If you don't want to do either of those things, have the baby. If we're all about saving money, let's save some money. Let's prevent these women from having more kids in the future.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 04:06 PM) Doesn't come across as very charismatic to me...his wife was livelier in the interview I watched with the entire family together. That whole $71,000 in debt issue doesn't strike me as an astute financial manager. Rich = greedy asshole! Poor = s***ty with money! Can't win with you guys.