Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 09:10 PM) Have you searched "Nazi flag" on Amazon? I just did but didn't see anything. Maybe they took it down. Although I did find a ring and a tin from 3rd party sellers.

Uh oh, did he just say Marc gasol? Nm he said Pau.

Banking on McDermott and Mirotic being great offensively.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 05:29 PM) It may have started that way but it turned a darker corner today when Apple banned video games of the civil war era that contain confederate flags. This was the kind of overreaction I feared would come of this mob mentality that's obviously in full effect. As I've stated in previous posts, removing them from state buildings was one thing (even though I'd prefer removing the politicians that have kept them there route), but we've now ventured into the absurd. They're now treading into dangerous territory, despite the fact it's their store to do with as they please. I read somewhere this morning that you can still but nazi stuff on amazon but not anything with a confederate flag. Not a surprise. Gotta jump on that bandwagon while you can.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 12:54 PM) You said that if it was clear there wouldn't be lawsuits over it. I was pointing out that the lawsuits came from a "throw everything against the wall and see what might stick" political strategy and saying "but there's a lawsuit!" doesn't actually tell us anything about the merits. Um, but it does when the whole basis of the case is ambiguity of statutory text. Be definition if it was "clear" there'd be no ambiguity to review.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 12:47 PM) That's the problem - the text disagrees with itself. To argue that this one line should be the focus is tantamount to arguing that the other ones should be not enforced and that the executive branch has no authority to interpret contradictory clauses which they have a long record of doing. To challenge that decision in court is fair, although it shouldn't have been necessary for it to reach the Supreme Court. Again, that's on Congress. It's the responsibility of Congress to fix it, NOT the courts. I just love when you guys get so pissy about this stuff, but God forbid if this was a conservative issue the Court bent over backwards to change. You'd be all over it. I'm not some Obamacare repealer. I could give two s***s honestly. But I 100% agree with Scalia when it comes to statutory interpretation and the pretty absurd hoops the majority went through to get to the conclusion that exchanges created by states also meant/means exchanges by the federal government.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 12:48 PM) Are you aware of where this challenge originated? It was part of a political conference that set out to destroy Obamacare using any means possible. This wasn't some principled legal stand. Hell, that they had to work so hard to find any eligible plaintiffs and even then, there were very legitimate questions about standing for all four of them says a lot. But nobody came up with this "federal exchanges don't count" interpretation until well after the bill had been signed into law, and it was developed by political opponents explicitly looking for anything they could to destroy the law. Please. That's like saying Plessy wasn't a good decision because it was all planned from the beginning by people that wanted to repeal the Separate Car Act. How it got to the Court is irrelevant to the Court's reasoning and holding.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 12:41 PM) Then he's just factually wrong. The drafting history of how those words got into the final bill is well-documented. They came in from different versions of the bill being merged together, and the bill where the language originated was significantly different in this particular aspect. The final bill sloppily retained that language, but there was no intent to withhold the subsidies. The record of the CBO scoring, the debates, the way the various state governments interpreted it all lend weight to this. Scalia's own opinion in NFIB lends weight to it! The fact that nobody thought it "clearly" limited the subsidies until political activists went looking for whatever they could find to undermine the law and described this as a novel "glitch" lends even more weight to it. Bills are always different from the final version. And this "mistake" was made 7 times. I don't buy it. And again, it's not for the Court to change it because of what it thinks Congress meant.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 12:41 PM) Of course the problem is that the rest of the bill clearly says and implies the opposite so "Read the d*** words in the text" applies throughout. I think if it were "clear" there wouldn't be lawsuits over it. It's anything but.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) On a first read, it's overwrought hack-work. I appreciate the sweet, sweet tears and his hypocrisy. He assumes his own conclusion over and over, relies on appeals to "common sense" instead of how the bill was actually drafted and passed through congress (why it says "...by the state" in some areas and not in others), and his closing statement could very easily be turned against him by changing "favors" to "disfavors" and "uphold and assist" to "undermine and destroy." Not really. The basis of his decision is "Congress used these words on purpose. There is no ambiguity, no matter how much you want to claim there is." He's not saying rely on common sense, he says read the damn words in the text. And his position is true: the court shouldn't be plugging the holes of a bill. That's not their job. SCOTUS has done that 3 times now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) It's overwrought hack-work. I appreciate the sweet, sweet tears and his hypocrisy. Hack work my ass. And yes, there is some hypocrisy, but that doesn't make it any less right.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2015 -> 12:18 PM) I agree but I'm sure for completely different reasons. You can still appreciate it for what it is, even if you don't agree with the result. I love the last two paragraphs: Pretty much. I love how he also called an argument "applesauce." So great.

Scalia's dissent is a great read.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 24, 2015 -> 04:26 PM) Your post is great and understandable and 100 percent in line with how we as a society feel today. No way in hell kids are allowed to be kids and be alone EVER. I just want to say this. When I was a kid, from 10 years old on, in Mt. Greenwood, parents would allow kids to basically do whatever they wanted to do in the summer. Your bike was your friend. Unorganized sports with buddies was your friend! And nobody I ever know was hit by a car, kidnapped, abused, approached. Kids did play Little League from age 10 on. Drove their own bike to the games; parents rarely attended unless you made the playoffs or something. Great life. Nobody got killed or kidnapped or hit by cars. I'd make the bike ride from 103rd street to 115th Street where the fields were. Never a problem. We also got soft drinks if we won paid for by our coaches; we got nothing if we lost. For some reason people in my generation and ensuing generations refused to allow their own kids to have the same childhoods. We were too afraid of "something happening" to the kids. From the geezers in my office, they'd argue the biggest difference between now and when they were kids is that neighborhoods used to be neighborhoods. You knew everyone on the block and all the kids on the block. Parents could rely on other parents to keep kids in line. Nowadays i'm not sure how much that happens. Certainly in some areas, but there's a ton of movement now. You don't buy a house and plan to live there until you die. The house you live in is just a stepping stone to the next one.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 24, 2015 -> 03:18 PM) This is the post of the year. Worded like Shakespeare. "over active parental oversight." That is such a cool way to say parents have coddled their babies for a couple generations now. You can blame it on the rare mass murders and kidnappings or whatever you want, but parents took away the kids' right to be a kid. No more playing baseball on street corners (you might get hit by a car, you know) or riding bikes with friends to hang out wherever their bikes took them (you might get kidnapped you know) to play whatever sport they felt like playing that day (throw a football, play whiffle ball or rubber ball with a wall as a backstop), play street hockey, go skating at the park in the winter. Nope, parents put uniforms on their kids at age 6 and organized everything lest their little babies get kidnapped or killed by some imagined threat. My original thread was misstated by me I guess. I just wondered why college athletes are expected to win and fans get all hot and bothered when they don't win (football, basketball) when their generation has been taught just competing is OK. How do we expect these kids to be "gamers" when all their lives they've been taught the result doesn't matter? I agree with the general point here, but I mean, if something happened, wouldn't you as a parent feel terrible? Given the availability of organized sports for kids from the time they're 3, call me crazy, but not letting them play on the street isn't some major sin as a parent. My son's K-5 school is 3 blocks from our house. I'm already dreading the day when we let him walk there by himself. I'm not sure it'll happen to be honest! I applaud those parents that want their kids to get out there and explore at a young age. And I 100% think it's bulls*** that some people/communities want to fine them for being bad parents/ But i'm also not going to judge other parents for not wanting to take the risk.

Mannix from SI said this morning that he didn't care to wait it out a couple of years for the TV money like Butler. He'd happily sign a 4 or 5 year deal this off season. Wonder if the Cavs balk at the 5 if that opens the door for the Bulls. His offense sure would be nice.

QUOTE (SnB @ Jun 24, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) We rode dumbo 6 times - she had a blast. Luckily, she napped in the stroller at about 2, which bought us a few more hours. Worked out great. Universal had Dr. Seuss land, which she enjoyed. We came back later that day after we left her w/ grandma and granpda and had a blast. The harry potter world is crazy good and I'm not even a fan. Good to hear. How were the crowds? Was it insanely packed? We went in mid-Sept when the crowds were 2 or 3 out of 10. It was still packed, but not terrible. We might try Universal this year. And Legoland, which is somewhat close by.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jun 24, 2015 -> 12:03 PM) Not sure they should be limiting themselves to a PG. If Hunter is there and there's a lesser PG available, ya gotta take Hunter. If Wright, Jones, and Grant are gone, I'd rather see E'Twuan Moore be the backup PG over anyone left....I don't necessarily think Moore as the backup PG is a bad thing to begin with though......I really like Wright though. "Umm, hello, we still have Hinrich!" --Thibs

Illinois smartly hires Dee Brown for a summer position. In the AD's office for now, presumably grooming him for a bigger role next year when he's done playing. I think that'd be great for him to be the face of the school again for sports.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2015 -> 08:18 AM) two weeks from today I'll be hiking here: Napali coast?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 03:32 PM) Over Labor Day, the wife and I are hiking across West Maroon Pass in Colorado between Aspen and Crested Butte. Basically, because of the giant peaks between the two towns, it's about a 3 hour drive between the two towns. But it's just a 12 mile hike between. Supposed to be one of the most beautiful hikes in the state of Colorado as well. I love living out here... I did the Bells with a buddy about 8 years ago. My first serious backpacking trip. It was fantastic.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 02:57 PM) I think the whole idea of participation awards making kids ok with losing is BS to begin with. I'm almost 40 and we had those awards back when I played. It's not a "new" thing. The thing is, kids aren't stupid. They know what those trophies are. They know that they aren't nearly as good as the first place trophies the other kids are walking around with. Often times we would get ice cream or some other treat after the game even if we lost but it didn't make us want to win any less. Honestly, I think the bigger problem is the kids that are getting pushed by their parents who are trying to re-live their failed sports aspirations through their kids. I have 3 girls and only the youngest had/has any interest in playing any kind of sport. She's not the worst, but she's not the best either. If she wants to continue to try and get better I'll support her but I'm not going to push her thinking she'll be the next Cat Osterman or Jennie Finch. So you're saying it's bad that I make my 3 year old, from the time he was about 1.5, watch golf with me on the weekends and hit balls in the backyard and constantly tell him "this is your future, you're daddy's ticket to awesome golf courses around the world?"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 03:01 PM) How does it remove any of his culpability beyond recognizing that culture and other peoples' ideas influence us all? The flag isn't "to blame," but it is a symbol of the ideology that led him to do this. Because it's providing some excuse, like maybe he wouldn't think like he does/did if he didn't live in a town that used a racist flag proudly. It's akin to people clamoring to remove Penthouse or something from print after a terrible rape or sexual assault because it's a mysogonist and sexist magazine. One has nothing to do with the other unless you're willing to say that it contributed to it in some way. It "fostered" the view. I don't think there is a controversy. Seems to me nearly everyone is behind taking it down. The only controversial part is why we're talking about it as we are, as if it's somehow connected to what happened, and the fakeness of companies trying to gain some PR points.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 02:47 PM) The removal of white supremacist symbols from government buildings is part of the "real issue." So again it plays a part in this and his somehow, in someway, to blame. Which takes some of the heat off this guy, even if its just a little bit. The actual victims? The church? The community? I'd say the national news coverage is about a 10:1 ratio in flag controversy to actual victim reporting so far.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 02:45 PM) Nobody is specifically concerned about one individual. It is obviously larger than that, and it's about the climates and cultures that breed the Dylan Storms and how to work to end those. Pretending that they don't exist, don't matter and cant' influence anyone isn't the way to address them. What climate and culture exists that make people think it's ok or even logical to kill 9 innocent black people? He thought black people were inferior. He though black men were raping white women to such a degree he needed to act. I mean, the guy's not insane, but he's not exactly with it either. Even a town like Charleston that flies a s***ty flag is not THAT bad in 2015. I don't pretend they don't exist. But i also don't pretend that normal people can change their minds.