Jenksismyhero

Jesus, Star War nerds are out in full effect today. My Twitter is chalked full of it. Why is there so much excitement for franchise that (1) hasn't been good for decades and (2) was always a bit overrated and has been passed, numerous times, by other, better franchises/stories?

I can believe there's an uproar over the cop that ran over the criminal. The criminal that robbed a store, set a house on fire, invaded a home, stole a car, and shot his assault rifle in the air on a public sidewalk, heading towards his work (I think).

Flashbacks to the LSAT.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Apr 14, 2015 -> 09:51 AM) OK, I started looking at the weights and you are correct. You should probably should stick with a pop-up. We didn't have a porta potty in either of our pop-ups. We always stayed at campgrounds with bathhouses so it was never a problem for us. Then we never had to worry about stopping at the dump stations on the way out either. We did have a small portable one that we used in the middle of the night a few times. Our second pop-up was laid out like this: The only difference was that we had a storage cabinet instead of the porta potty. The slide adds a little weight but it really makes a difference in the interior space. When we had extra people we could fold the dinette down into a bed and we were still able to walk through the camper without stepping on anyone. Yeah the slides are really nice from what we could tell at the RV show. I guess having the porta potty isn't a huge deal. I thought with a 3 year old it would be nice but realistically we'll be at full hook-up places anyway and they usually have shower/bathroom facilities. Here was one I was potentially going to check out: http://chicago.craigslist.org/sox/rvd/4976794968.html Looks pretty similar to what you had. There are older models in the early 00's that seem to be in good condition that go for 3-4k. More my price range for something that I want to use a lot, but realistically might only use once a year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 14, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) I'm not sure how your getting to that conclusion. Before the aca, premiums increased at am average of x% every year. Since the aca started to take effect, premiums are increasing at less than x%. That's saving money. I posted a study from kaiser permanente a couple of pages back that actually found overall premium decreases over the last year in many states for individual plans. How about family plans?

My original plan was to get a light travel trailer like one of the hybrids but I think i'd be really pushing it with my Escape. I'm sort of stuck in the medium sized pop-up zone unless we upgrade the car. Did yours have a porta potty in it? If so, was it worth the upcharge to the more premium models? Seems like that extra 3 feet and the portapotty is where the price point jumps (along with the a/c, electric lift, etc.)

Ha, I found this thread from nearly 7 years ago. Damn I've been around here for a while On to the next upgrade: a camper. We've got an almost 3 year old now and a dog and i'm trying to sell my wife on getting a pop up camper. I want to take a 10-12 day trek west (dakotas, grand teton, yellowstone, or some variation of that) in August/September. We could go stay in cabins/lodges, but for a little more we can get a used pop up camper, stay in campgrounds wherever we please (but still have the car for some freedom away from the campsite), and really ramp up the road trips for the next few years. Anyone have experience with pop up campers? Worth it? A nightmare? We went to the RV show in Rosemont this year and got a feel for what the newest models have, but i'm looking more 2005-2010ish. Basically $3-5k at most. And something I can tow with my Escape (3,500 lb max).

Incredible 4 days of golf. Watched more than I'd like to admit.

So much for slowing down.

Illinois fans out in full force with the officiating complaints! Nice to see. The most egregious to me was the out of bounds call. The video clearly confirmed the ball was out on Duke, but they decided there was indisputable evidence? That's when I think the replay system should be handled by some group sitting behind a bunch of monitors outside of the stadium. The refs are under a lot of pressure to get that call right and they make mistakes. Get someone else to make that call, someone that can spend 45 seconds looking at monitors. I don't see why that can't happen at some stage of the tournament. Maybe starting with weekend #2. Wisconsin got screwed, but it didn't help that they also choked the last few minutes. That's what really did them in. Next year should be interesting in the Big Ten. I think Maryland is easily the team to beat. If everyone for Indiana comes back they might be 2. OSU should be up there if the recruits gel. Wisconsin and MSU will hang around. Purdue, Illinois and Iowa are your bubble teams....again.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Apr 4, 2015 -> 10:25 PM) Yeah, f*** that. I don't give a f*** about conference pride. Congrats to the Badgers but I hate the other Big 10 teams year round, why would I root for them in the tourney? +1 This game doesn't have a good outcome. Duke and it's f***ing Duke. Wisconsin and it's another program with a title that Illinois doesn't have.

Best week in golf has begun. I'm debating whether to take Friday off to watch all day.

Don Draper has had more "Undressed" moments than the entire cast of Undressed.

QUOTE (LDF @ Apr 3, 2015 -> 11:54 PM) i understand if you didn't like it, what was it that you didn't like. for me, i like the story line, different and a twist..... but that ending was lame. Pretty much all of it. McConaunghey sucked (perhaps it's just me being tired of his one-note acting. It was an extended Lincoln car commercial character).The story was far too convoluted with little explanation (even theoretical or make-em-up). They didn't really set up the story enough for me to be engaged about why it was necessary for them to leave (minor gripe I guess). You sorta just get plopped into this story and expect to be all emotionally connected from the get go. The robots...Jesus, how'd they get past the storyboard? Michael Cane looked the exact same despite being like 65-70 and aging 23 years. Casey Affleck tried to keep his wife and kids from being checked out/helped? He just suddenly became a bad guy? Why? And then it ended very quickly. They didn't really explain why being in orbit around the planet was different from being on the surface of the planet. Matt Damon popping up 2 hours in took me out of the movie. The ending just seemed to be a "well, we're confused as s*** and nearly 3 hours in so....time travel!" And the killer - the whole f***ing movie was about Cooper and his daughter reuniting and then when they finally did it lasted 5 seconds and she told him to go away because her kids were there. WTF? edit: oh, and plan B was was stupid and made no sense because they sent ONE WOMAN TO REPOPULATE THE NEW PLANET. I mean just the whole thing from the get go didn't work. It looked cool, that's about the only thing it had going for it.

Interstellar...f***ing terrible... I want me 3 hours back.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 12:05 PM) So the single, only reason you can cite for why these cases aren't comparable is that race is a protected class. Ergo, you are either choosing, you think race should not be a protected class and you would be ok with businesses discriminating against mixed-race couples or you think that sexuality should be added to federal and state protected classes. Which is it? Your defense to whether it would be ok is "it's a protected class". That's not a moral argument, that's avoiding answering the question based on a legal statement. Is it ok to discriminate against a group if its small enough or disliked enough to not receive protection? I've said the legal protection as well as not believing that someone will be able to bring a viable claim for that. Yes, factually if you want to remove all context, it would be the same in that someone could claim inter-race relations are against their religious beliefs and so supporting an inter-race wedding would be a substantial burden on that practice (in both cases I don't think the law would apply to any situation outside of a wedding or some other arguable support or promotion of the practice). Also, i've said i'd get rid of all of these protected classes, because there are other characteristics of people that can be used as a basis for discrimination that we're perfectly ok with, but these select few are not. Along with the fact that I think public pressure is a better deterrent of this kind of activity than the law (in our present society in 2015...obviously there was a need for it back in the 60's). Ergo, I'm an equal opportunity hater. Everyone should be able to do it, edit: especially private businesses.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 11:39 AM) They have a religious belief against races interacting. Forcing them to interact is a substantial burden on their beliefs. It's no different. There are laws in place protecting race discrimination. There are no laws (federally) on sexuality. That's a huge difference. I'm also pretty positive that the original RFRA included language about it not applying to any other federally protected class.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 11:33 AM) I did not see any explanation for why that doesn't work on page 2. At some point you brought that up and I said it doesn't work because what religious practice would be substantially burdened in that situation? On top of the fact that race is a protected class whereas sexuality is not. edit: page 3, btw.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 11:25 AM) Would you be ok with a restaurant refusing service due to miscegenation? See page 2 or somewhere early on in this thread. That analogy doesn't work.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 09:18 AM) I'm struggling to understand what the difference is between serving pizza at a gay wedding (which they won't do) and serving pizza to a married gay couple out on a date in their restaurant (which they will do). It's a dumb argument, I agree. I'm sure it has something to do with indirectly promoting/supporting gay marriage.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 08:58 AM) As someone who knows the Pence agenda well, this is a flat out lie. It is absolutely meant for that. They are hiding behind a couple of technicalities to make that claim with a straight face, but it isn't true. By not having an protections for gays, and refusing to add them, until the public shaming happened, this is exactly what the bill accomplished. You can't claim discrimination without the ability to be recognized as a class. That is how Pence gets to keep lying to everyone without actually "lying". Why would they pass a law to provide a defense to something that is already legal? They were trying to get votes for backing religious voters who have an issue with gay marriage. It's the same reason other states have passed the same type of defense of religion law. Not to mention that the wording of the law makes it applicable in extremely narrow and limited circumstances. You couldn't deny a gay person pizza because there is no substantial burden of a religious practice there. Maybe at a wedding because that may be an activity supporting a sin or whatever, but even then it's a tough case to defend in states that have this law but also have sexuality as a protected class.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2015 -> 06:18 AM) YES. IT. IS. That is explicitly the point. No one has given a single example of how this could be applied that isn't denying someone service based on who they are. The "how dare you make a religious person make a cake for a gay wedding" is explicitly an argument that people should be able to decide that it's ok to discriminate because their religion tells them too, and of course, that's the least offensive version of this anyone has thought of. We've got plenty of other much more disheartening versions we could come up with, all of which fit the text of this law and all of which are discriminating against people that aren't liked. The Governor himself was given half a dozen chances to explain how that wasn't the point and ducked the question every time. It's not though. That's the intended consequence in a limited, specific circumstance, but the point of the law is to provide protection to Christians that don't want to work gay weddings or in some way support gay weddings. As some people have already come out and said, they'll serve gay people, they won't serve at a gay function. There is a distinction there, whether you agree with it or not.

Decision on April 25th, after his Kansas visit. Doesn't sound promising, but he'd sure be a nice back-up or even potential starter with Paul.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 04:04 PM) You continue to say this while ignoring the reply I gave last time so I'm not going to bother since you obviously didn't listen then. You gave no logical reply, so there wasn't much to listen to. IIRC you gave a stat about NFL abuse being lower than the national rate, which was irrelevant to the NFL still allowing that s*** in their league. You're making the exact same bad correlation argument. Doing business in Indiana based on one law out of the tens of thousands on the books does not mean you support said law in any way shape or form. Btw, you living in this country wherein states can pass laws to discriminate against homosexuals means you support discrimination of homosexuals.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2015 -> 03:59 PM) But you certainly could convince people like me not to watch the Big 10 Tourney if it was held in Indy. You still watch the Superbowl, you child/spouse abuse supporter.