Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2015 -> 08:50 AM) Well to be fair...the "the Bloods and Crips are creating riots!" rumor was posted in here as well. Slightly more believable than the BPD letting the city burn for PR purposes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) Because when I push you to apply the same word to a police department that murdered a guy and has paid out millions of dollars in settlements for police brutality you slither away. Is the Baltimore police department full of thugs? Yes, i'm sure there are thugs in the Baltimore PD. No question.

FWIW, I heard on the radio this morning that once you account for the level of competition, he actually grades out as the best pass rusher. Still, he's an idiot and I wouldn't take him until he becomes a "good value" pick.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:51 AM) I assume teams look at it as a decision making issue rather than a weed issue. Politics aside, pot is illegal in most places and the NFL tests for it. So this is the opportunity of a lifetime for players to make millions, and they know they're going to be watched like a hawk and at certain point, tested. It can raise flags that maybe the prospect isn't ready to make decisions and can impact their availability once they're on a team. If players can't refrain from smoking/driving under the influence/getting in to some kind of legal trouble right before the combine or draft, you gotta question the intelligence, character and drive of the person involved. The physical attributes and skill don't really mean much if he's going to get on the roster, get his money, and then screw around and never become a good player. I wouldn't take him at 7. 2nd or 3rd round maybe.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:45 AM) Didn't see this posted earlier in the thread, but, in my opinion, a pretty balanced take from The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...utm_source=SFFB Yeah I agree with a lot in there, but here's my one issue: He's asking why we're not as outraged about police brutality as we are about the riots. And I think the answer is pretty simple: we're watching it live, as it happens. We can see the smoldering cars and buildings. We can see the kids hurling brick and bottles. With police brutality we don't, or rarely do, and when we do, generally there is a fair bit of outrage.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:19 AM) I think it's fair to do the same characterization of both sides. If 10% of the protestors are actively criminals and are "uncivilized thugs", both terms used in this thread, then the police don't get to brag because their bad number is 5%. Either you use the broad brush to paint both sides or we can drop it and actually focus on how things get to this point so often. You're all over the place here. Why is it bad to call kids throwing rocks/bricks at cops and setting things on fire thugs? Where has anyone, me specifically, said that everyone in baltimore is a thug? Clearly we're all talking about specific people here.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:18 AM) Someone was trying to directly link the "police culture" in Baltimore with African-American leadership and/or Democrats. If that's true, logically....then white administrations where white officers are committing crimes against minority populations (such as Hispanics/Mexicans in the Southwest) are even guiltier. I'm not saying one caused the other, i'm saying one was caused by white people in the past, but in the decades since the culture hasn't been changed even though non-whites and democrats (the saviors of the minority) have been in charge.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:11 AM) So if the major or city council was white, like in LA during the Rodney King and OJ Simpson debacles...then it would make it, what, worse? Who was leading the city during the Rampart investigations? You're telling me that the culture of the police force is set by the mayor and Democrats? REALLY? http://article.wn.com/view/2015/04/20/Majo...gns_After_Firs/ If that's your example, then Parma, Missouri, is an easy counter-example to cite. Should I keep going? I dunno that it would make it "worse," but I think the argument that this is a systematic problem caused by white people 50 years ago becomes weaker. In Baltimore you've had systemic issues, but you've also had black leaders and democrats in power for decades. They're just as much of a failure to the black folks as white people were in the past. In other words, unlike Ferguson, this isn't strictly about race. It's more about poverty/crime.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:06 AM) This assumes that the police department leadership would label cops who rough people up as "bad cops" instead of good cops doing a good job and that the only thing standing in their way is those pesky unions. That's a problem, and the best way to weed that out is City Hall forcing changes from the top down. Which again would be black democrats in a city like Baltimore.

QUOTE (LDF @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 10:00 AM) wow that came out of nowhere. i may be wrong here, but internal affair investigation can override the protection of the union if the person is found guilty Yeah but if they union wasn't so strong, a cop that's an asshole could be fired for being an asshole. Instead it requires numerous steps and/or serious violations of police conduct to get rid of bad cops. Is that THE reason? No. But it certainly doesn't help.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 09:59 AM) The problem is much deeper than individual "bad cops." It's a culture that fosters and protects that sort of behavior. A culture that for a while now has been led by blacks and democrats, the people who supposedly have Baltimore's best interests in mind.

QUOTE (LDF @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 09:49 AM) but people opinions of cops is all wrong, and the bad cops make it worse. we the citizens needs a police force, to protect us. That's the missing part here. Sadly there are people on those streets that WANT the cops to intervene. They WANT their homes and businesses protected. But they won't/can't get it because of the "protestors" in the "uprising."

One other minor issue: Thibs' rotations. Where the f*** is Etwaun Moore? Why is the dead body of Hinrich playing over him? It was only a few minutes last night, but still. Find a spark. Bench Rose when he's sucking and try something different. It was painful watching Rose dribble for 15 seconds, use a pick to get double teamed and then throw up a prayer or turn it over.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 09:30 AM) While I agree that police should be held to a higher standard, I have to disagree strongly with your obvious attempts to somehow make them the same as people rioting and looting. Yes, a cop beating a subject and a dude stealing from a broken into store are both violating the law. But the similarity ends there, for better or worse. As far as I can see, you are ready to indict all police for the acts of a few, while vehemently disagreeing with the characterization of looters as the criminals they are. You're doing it by referring to anger as a motivation or reason. If you want to do that, then why not excuse abusive police officers for their anger? How about neither are OK or justified? Bingo.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 09:15 AM) This just sounds like something that will be a failed urban legend soon enough. The Baltimore PD chief said last night it's credible.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2015 -> 09:03 AM) I totally agree and that's why I keep referring to this as a chemical mixture. The process is exactly the same from place to place. Something bad happens. People get out in the streets because they feel that their voice isn't being heard. Protest starts peacefully, but still surrounded by police in riot gear. Things start to turn ugly, either the people start throwing things or yelling at the police or the police react first to a crowd that vastly outnumbers them, things start to break down, and then people take advantage of the situation. It happens the same way every single time. Except it didn't happen like this. On one side of town there were peaceful protests. On the other a mob of kids decided to commit crimes and target police officers as a message. Then it devolved from there.

I love your logic Balta: Police committing criminal acts is the explanation/justification for violent responses ("Well what did you expect would happen?") Black males committing criminals acts is the explanation for police over-policing and using excessive force. Why doesn't the same "well what do you expect" rationale apply? On top of the fact that, yes, big picture here, all the american people see are black kids, mostly male, acting like thugs (oh no, the loaded word!), acting like the stereotypical young black male that people think of when they want to excuse certain police behavior. They're literally making the case for why more police intervention is necessary and why cops shouldn't have to simply talk people down, they should fear for their lives, shoot first and ask questions later. On CNN they had some young black "political activist," Malcolm-X wannabe who said it was terrible that we were calling this a riot. It's an "uprising." They're not looters, they're protestors. He thinks he's making some nuanced point, but in reality he's just adding more gasoline to that fire you're talking about.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2015 -> 09:17 PM) Yes, civilized society. Locking a guy in the back of the car with no seat belt, driving around hard, slamming him into the sides of the vehicle, and accidentally killing him. You know, civilized. The PD F***ing up doesn't give people excuses to become criminals, but it's worth noting that you used the phrase "the police F***ing up" instead of "the police committing crimes." Fill up a vat of gas, throw lit matches at it, and then become totally astonished and angry at the gasoline for exploding. Then go find another place with gasoline and repeat. No one is excusing the cops that f*** up and/or commit criminal acts. Clearly as you cited earlier they pay out in our court system (civilized!) when they do. But you, on the other hand, are providing excuses and are supporting violent, criminal behavior as a response to illegal activity. Any sort of "yeah but the police are dicks!" responses is excusing the behavior and arguing that it's justified. I mean for Christ's sake, they burned down a community center for poor elderly people. They ran into stores and looted. They robbed people on the streets. Why? What civilized person does that in response to police using excessive force and killing someone?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2015 -> 09:04 PM) And equally good job Baltimore PD under the same standard right? It's called civilized society man. The PD f***ing up doesn't give you license to become a criminal. Its a city run by blacks too. It's not Ferguson. This whole "the cops are just racist and have been for decades" excuse is just being abused at this point. I hope Baltimore implodes, anyone with money finally moves out and then the excuses can stop.

Rose is terrible on defense.

The best way to change stereotypes is to perform the stereotypical act. Good job young black males of baltimore.

You can skip a lot of the lore and still get the main points of the story. When you're done with a book, go read a recap online and anything you may have missed will be explained. I did that when I was struggling through A Feast for Crows.

I'm fine with the change for the show, but I don't think it's very believable for Sansa to agree to it. Going back to your home to marry into the family that killed your brother and took over your family castle, ending the Stark house? No chance.

This team is tough to watch sometimes.

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 23, 2015 -> 03:27 PM) Wouldn't it be that way if it was real? People would be horny? Phil is unlikable as all hell but I still enjoy it. To an extent, sure. I think the problem for me is they really haven't dug into any other character besides Phil. Everyone else is just a type. Which is fine if that's how the show is, but Phil has to do something else besides trying to get laid. Maybe now that everyone seems partnered up he'll move on. It would have been 100 times better if this show were on Netflix and the entire season or half season was him wandering around by himself. Then he meets Carol and the end of the 1st season is January Jones showing up. You'd get more comedic value with Forte being Forte in different situations with other things to do. Carol, btw, was perfectly cast.