Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 03:46 PM) I don't imagine the super-old, conservative CBS audience being particular fans of being yelled at by Jon Stewart. And I also believe that Comedy Central would match any number. Seriously. Did the Daily Show suffer at all when Oliver took over? edit: I'll answer that myself: apparently not much: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed...stewarts-607418

"The earth is round and orbits the sun? How could you ever believe it? Serious question? We live in reality."

QUOTE (TitoMB @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 03:50 PM) Or just, ya know, shorten the season. Or that.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 03:38 PM) Paid attendance 11k Who wants to go watch a game in this weather? They really should make all of these teams start in the south or in domes until mid-April.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 01:08 PM) How could you ever believe it? Serious question. We live in reality. That technology isn't really that unbelievable. Maybe the specifics are totally wrong, but they've been researching cloaking technology for years now. http://science.howstuffworks.com/invisibility-cloak.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/invisible-tank.htm. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/tech/innovat...ing-technology/

Lol, damn, i fell for that

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 11:59 AM) Jenks, i think waiting it out and seeing our reaction to the show skewed your reaction to it. If you watched it from the jump like we did I think you would have had a different opinion as the show went on Yeah that's a good point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 11:13 AM) It's been busted since before we bought the place. According to our neighbor, it was installed around 1999 but wasn't used by the two owners between then and when we bought the place (2011). The pump still works, but who knows how long the plumbing's been busted. You'd need to either keep it on all winter so the water doesn't freeze or drain and winterize it. Ah. If the pump is still good I wonder if you could at least sell that. Especially if it's an older model and more difficult to find parts.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 11:45 AM) Top 3 favorite shows, go Of all time? Probably The Wire, Sopranos and Breaking Bad. Lost and Deadwood would probably round out the top 5. Other current shows that I really like: Shameless, Vikings, Black Sails (not great, but enjoyable to watch and has potential) and Mad Men. Shameless and Mad Men are probably the only two in the must watch on Sunday night category.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 11:42 AM) you are a strange tv critic Lol, i'm hard to please. I like the show, but I dunno, I thought after reading the responses people had it would be like a "must watch, can't wait to get home" type of show. My wife and I have taken 2 weeks to watch 4 episodes.

Futuristic:

After 4 episodes of True Detective, i'm not sure I get the hype. Interesting, sure. Well acted, yes. But engaging? Eh. Well written? Seems overly complicated (i'm already at a loss as to why they're chasing after guys they were after. Also rather convenient the guy they're trying to find ran with the same crew as Cole when he worked undercover).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2014 -> 10:44 AM) Worth a shot I guess but the plumbing is all busted because the previous owner never bothered to winterize it. Did you not keep it on all winter? I thought that was all you had to do.

So, if you're an AT&T or Verizon customer, might be worth checking out your data plan to see if you're getting the best deal. I got some new phones and a plan with AT&T in February. I did the 2 year contract, not the ATT Next thing. 6gb a month for $160 (2 devices). In March they dropped their prices in their ongoing price war with Verizon (Verizon just responded today with a price drop). Anyways, I went over with our data this month and got to looking at our account and there was an option for me to change my plan to a 6gb plan for $130. No catches at all, just a new price. Took 5 minutes to confer with an ATT Rep that there was no hidden catch and make the change.

When hasn't America been a plutocracy?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:35 PM) If you think Citizens United didn't change anything then my God you have had your eyes closed for a long time. Those Super-PACS and the money they suddenly had available anonymously was a remarkable new thing that we haven't seen possibly ever. I tune it out. I don't think it wins elections. Perhaps i'm naive, but I think there's a point where people start tuning ads out. So yes, the amounts of money have gone up and the amount of groups that can target candidates have gone up, but the messages all stay the same. I'd like to see a study that shows the major shift in elections. Seems to me its the same types of people who were marketing and campaigning for/against the same types of policies only in a larger scale. When it comes down to those few undecided voters, are their minds really changed from that extra stuff? I'm not convinced. edit: and while i guess we'll see what happens going forward, 2012 that extra money and targeted campaigning didn't change anything. Obama won and it wasn't close.

And for both of your examples, this ruling didn't change anything. Citizens United didn't change anything. You're talking about money influencing politics. Shocker. This is waste, but at least it's up to the person contributing the money whether it's going to be wasted or not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:18 PM) You ignored my question. Is that a good thing? Do you feel that plutocracy is better than democracy? I did: But I'll say it a different way: Generally speaking, no, it's not ideal. But I also don't think this ruling, or the effect of the ruling, will make that much of a difference. And like I said before, maybe there's a positive to this. If some rich person in Illinois wants to give money to conservative based groups in Illinois to try and break the liberal stranglehold on the city, maybe he/she has a chance now. They're not limited in their efforts to give to multiple groups in multiple races. You're viewing this as a potential shield to democracy, i'm viewing it as a potential sword. I think in part, we're both right.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:09 PM) Justice Breyer: "Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard” Which, again, has been the case from the start, from local elections to national elections.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) So you admit that the graphic you posted was BS is all I'm saying? I didn't look at it closely enough to see if it was 100% accurate. But it doesn't really change my point - both campaigns generate and spend a s*** ton of money, and even if the GOP generated more, it didn't matter at the end of the day.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:03 PM) Do you believe it is a good thing or a bad thing that a single man can buy the policy positions of an entire party, regardless of whether or not it has happened previously? Rich people set up this government, and you're surprised that rich people influence it? Yes, it's a bad thing in theory, but in practice i'm not sure it makes THAT much difference. If the rich really did control politics to the extreme you're talking about, why is national policy generally pretty moderate?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:02 PM) No that wasn't. That only counts the 2 "official" super-PACS and not the dozens of smaller, off the books, should be illegal ones. Karl Rove's hundreds of millions of dollars isn't there. I'm sure Obama and the Dems had no similar set-up. GMAB.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 12:01 PM) However, it absolutely enables the super-rich to have enormous influence over policy decisions. We just discovered, for example, that no Republican candidate will be allowed to do as GWB did and refer to the West Bank as "occupied territories". The Republican Party is only allowed to consider those territories as part of Israel due to the influence purchased by one man. Because American politics hasn't operated this way from the start? I mean come on man, money buying policy/influence has been happening forever.

For reference, here was the spending in 2012: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 2, 2014 -> 11:55 AM) Do you feel the influx of money in our campaigns over the last decade has been a good thing? For example, the potential Republican candidates just spent the weekend kowtowing to a major donor in Las Vegas to try to get his support. I find that concept repugnant to the very idea of democracy. There is also a legacy of direct corruption a mile long in most areas in this country which continues to be ignored. Of course, a valid point in reply is that "these limits didn't do much anyway since you could just launder the money through a superPAC after Citizens United tossed out the rest of the rules", so in that sense I guess we're just cutting down on behavior that would be called money laundering in any other field of life with this decision. Honestly money hasn't made it any better or worse IMO. You see more s***tys ads I guess, but I can turn the channel. Even before Citizens United there were ways of funneling money into campaigns. This doesn't allow a super rich person to buy an election - the individual limits are still in place. And really, as a huge supporter of changing our system to be multi-party, I hope this is going to help that effort. Hopefully some rich person will funnel money into a variety of elections/a new third party to start changing the current system.