Jenksismyhero

Yeah, no, there's never been a me-first, loud-mouth wide receiver that annoys teammates. I've never heard of that before.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 12:52 PM) Worth asking a question...let's say the Bears trade Cutler and go all-in on "rebuilding". What would have more use to the Bears, Marshall or a ~4th round pick next year in that case? Clearing out that cap space and adding a future pick could be the right move if they dump their QB without a replacement that can help them compete now. Totally agree. I'm more attacking the "Marshall is a cancer" crowd. That's a bunch of nonsense.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 11:53 AM) I agree, as well as Brandon Marshall. Pace put a strong emphasis on character. Marshall very well could of ran his mouth out of town. I swear if the Bears cut Marshall they're the dumbest f***ing franchise in the league. Cutting him for what? For speaking out and being emotional when the team and franchise is going down the tube? SO TERRIBLE! He's an incredible talent and has been worth every penny.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 11:53 AM) Just a face-palm moment, Chris Cuomo on CNN just called the black, French-Muslim gunman an 'African-American'. Can't chance offending someone...

Anyone ever get forced to watch The Bachelor and/or do you hate watch portions of it to annoy your wife who's a big fan (me)? If so, this recap will make you LOL. http://www.tvmywifewatches.com/2014/01/the...icially-on.html

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 08:19 AM) Alpha put forth that being asked to make a delivery in bad weather the same as reprinting a cartoon that by Alpha's own estimate will enrage hundreds of millions of people. I disagreed, that isn't even close. I was working with the example Alpha gave. You can report the news without reprinting the cartoon. Also, again my original question is this . . . Is it OK for your employer to knowingly put your life in danger if you are a receptionist, accountant, foreign office employee, for the Chicago Tribune and they reprint the cartoon? Only three people answered, SoxFn mentioned jobs that are already dangerous like law enforcement. Alpha who said his employer sends him on deliveries in bad weather. Is that the same thing? Isaid no. I say it isn't OK for an employer to knowingly put their employees lives at risk especially when they are working jobs that would not ordinarily involve death threats and there are alternatives that would result in the same result. By covering the story and not reprinting the cartoon the news is covered. Same as we do for violent crimes. No one is pushing to have the crime scene photos released. Tex, that's a pretty weak argument for several reasons. First, you're assuming it's a foregone conclusion that printing the drawing would result in violence. You don't know that and no one else does either. It's not the same as ordering troops into a battle or ordering police to do their jobs that have inherent risk. Is it an increased risk? Sure, I guess, but if that's the case then why do airlines continue to offer their service given the increased risk of a possible attack? Where's the concern over government officials working in government buildings? There's an increase there too. (2) There's a huge difference between printing gore and violence (which many publications DO publish) based on a business decision (most people won't buy/click on those types of publications because of the gore) and deciding not to publish pictures of Mohammed because of fear. That's what this comes down to. It's not a business decision, it's fear. Which is exactly what they want. I'll say again: based on many responses on this site, the terrorists have won. Let's do a hypothetical: there's a group of crazy evangelicals that kill homosexuals and/or a journalists covering homosexuals in a newspaper that published photos of two men kissing. It happens 2-3 teams over a 6 year period. Every major news publication decides that they're going to stop publishing photos of homosexuals because fear. You're telling me that you'd be ok with that? That fear is a good justification for a restriction on the freedom of expression? No, you wouldn't, nor would the vast majority of the western world. I can get behind not publishing photos because it will cut profits. I can't get behind not doing so because of fear of what people might think.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 09:08 AM) Its true though. If it was cold in school we went and put on our jackets. I suspect now you cannot do that because of social media and media pressure and also kids hiding things in their jackets. It's about liability. They don't want to run the risk of a kid getting frostbite and getting sued for it.

At this point even a bad Tate is better than Starks. He's a good ball handler and runs the offense.

Jesus, can we revoke Crosbys scholarship?

Well they showed up and played well, but I think this was a perfect storm win. Early foul trouble and missed ft's for the terps. **assuming they pull this out..

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 09:50 PM) I'm not sure I've ever seen a player go from being really good to beyond horrendous (unrelated to injury or age) the way Aaron Cosby has. Wow is he terrible right now. Everyone in the building but him knew that was a stupid shot

Playing too much prevent (Illinois I mean).

Maryland using Illinois' playbook in the 2nd half.

Waiting for the 8 minute dry spell.

Hilarious that cnn posted this when they refuse to show the drawings. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/opinion/ghit...gazine-killing/

Good to know the terrorists have convinced you that censorship is justified.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 05:25 PM) No one is abandoning their principles. You are hysterical. A bunch of courageous journalists in france were gunned down today, and a bunch of Americans freak out about how they are going to die in a terrorist attack. Something bad happened to some good people, acting like this is a turning point in a war gives them way more power than they have. ?? It's censoring speech, literally a tenant of our society. And I'm not concerned about being a victim. I'm concerned that the west continues to act like being nice curbs this kind of behavior when all evidence indicates that it doesnt.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 05:13 PM) The real purpose of the icon is to show that at the end of the day, it is up to individuals to stand behind their own ideals. Its easy for a group to target a single newspaper, its nearly impossible for a group to target individuals spread across the world. If more people see the cartoon because of the attack, then in the end, the terrorists have lost. Tough to do when major media outlets censor the image that caused all this. I'm not sure what Fox/CNN/MSNBC/BBC etc are doing with it. I'm sure even if they show it there will be a ton of "we're so sorry we're showing you this but...."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 05:09 PM) Didn't the AP just do that because of Catholics too? 4 years later because they knew they were going to be criticized. But yes, that too was pathetic and wrong.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) Many of the things he is getting criticized about arent even a concern in the NFL, we only care now because he is in college. Rape and theft aren't issues the NFL is concerned about?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 04:57 PM) FWIW, Sunni Muslims make up about 20% of the world's population and would be offended on some level with depictions of Mohammed being published. It's a pretty silly mistake to conflate "people who would be offended" with "people who would commit terrorism over it." Sure, hence the % I threw out. Millions of people are offended by a lot of things - gays, Kardashians, Cubs fans, etc. Some of that stuff "offends" me and "makes me mad." That doesn't stop the media from publishing it. So the only real justification here is the threat of violence. Which means they've won. They've put so much fear into the western world that the west is willing to abandon its principles.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 04:54 PM) It's admirable to take a stand that puts your own life in danger. I find it a harder decision if your stand puts another person's life in danger. Those at Charlie Hebdu were there for a reason, AP is just different. Yeah, it would be cool if a bunch of papers colluded, but, it's pretty easy when you are 100% certain nothing will happen to you to do it. But no one can say this anymore. It's all incredibly rare, but anyone can be a target. Running in a marathon can make you a target. Drawing a cartoon can make you a target. And if the AP (and others) had balls to begin with, this wouldn't be a problem. People could choose to work at an organization like that and "risk" an attack. That's still not an excuse to abandon your principles because of fear.

Here's your Obama Administration position on this: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/07/...-charlie-hebdo/ Translation: "It's highly offensive. They shouldn't have done it. I know, we have this thing called freedom of speech/press. I'm not really saying they don't have the RIGHT to publish it, but it's a terrible decision to do it so they shouldn't have done it."

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 04:45 PM) I'm so glad people like Charlie Hebdu stand up for free speech in true circumstances of courage, where violence is actively charged and carried out against them. But give AP some slack. It's really hard to do what Charlie Hebdu and the people that work there do, AP has thousands of employees all over globe who may get attacked. They have skin in the game, nobody is going to come after soxbadger for putting up the image on a chicago baseball message board. That said, there is a really wrong thing to do, and it's blame Charlie Hebdu for provoking. The fault is those that respond to speech with violence. No, see that's the complete wrong way to look at it. The fact that the AP and other publications go along with that censorship nonsense is a factor here. It narrowed the pool of potential targets to this paper, a repeat "offender." If every publication said "f*** it, we don't care if .000001% of the global population gets offended by this publication," terrorists wouldn't know who to attack. edit: and the fact that certain publications are censoring the cartoons that caused this is beyond pathetic.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 04:42 PM) It helps the Cavs, but not much. It's fun watching that trainwreck. So many of their issues would be solved if Love and Irving just played defense. I think that's onle one of several issues. Their biggest problem besides defense is size. Losing Verajo hurt a lot. Not that he was an all-star, but he was a competent big man.