Jenksismyhero

I'm debating whether or not to drop $50 bucks and buy the two Walking Dead compendiums. Normally $120 for both. $50 seems like so much though when I could download them for free.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) Im not even sure why people are directing their comments at me. Im the one saying you never know what will happen on draft day and that its somewhat silly to go back and say "What if". Im also not sure why its so important to get Anthony. It just seems like a move to make a move. With Rose uncertain Id rather have the picks and see if we can get lucky. I'm the opposite. Odds of drafting an elite scorer and all-star, even in the lottery, aren't great. And on top of that, you'll have to wait a few seasons to get to that point. Melo is a proven, ready-to-win now move. Picks are what the Bulls have been doing for the last 5 years. I'm not sold on the idea that Melo would ever play defense well enough for Thibs. And I'm not sure how Rose and Melo would work. I think they'd figure it out eventually, and it's certainly closer to a championship contending team than without Melo. I say pull the trigger unless they think they can get a guy like Love.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 01:31 PM) If he were actually interested in making an intelligent point, there's one that could actually be made. Hillary may be the early front-runner but he's correct in that she has given us no real obvious policy statements as of yet, there's no real "here's what we'll get done if you elect me", or even a "here's a decision I was right about that the rest of you f***ed up". IN 2008 there were both of those. The Democrats were debating what they'd do with health care, and at least 1 candidate got to say "the rest of you totally f***ed up the most important international vote of the last several decades, the Iraq debacle". Being able to say that was definitely a key aspect in how that election turned out, and there was a big policy point to deal with. Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has not laid out a justification for a candidacy and has not spelled out any specific thing that she would focus on getting done. The counter-point of course is that at this point, virtually no legitimate candidate has done so because we're nearly 3 years away from the election day so there's time to do those things. But either way, that is a valid point..."why are we electing this person" is a legitimate question right now. Instead we get borderline misogynist, ad-hominem bullcrap. That type of line is beneath a decent person. You've never had a buddy date a girl and the group all agreed she's a b****, but you could never point to a specific example of why? It's just a vibe. And let's be real. I think to be a woman in 2014 and get to where she's at you have to be to a certain extent. You're dealing with men who are assholes most of the time. edit: I should add that I understand your point and Greg does seem to come into this thread and just say "she's a b****! why is she a candidate?" without offering much else. And he's done it more than once.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) The fact that his dad said he thought they should have called first to see if they wanted the scholarship...LMAO. Yes, hold on, let me offer you when you can't sign for another year and won't get here for another year, and I'll pass on someone that will commit and sign in a few months. Recruiting doesn't run through you. I guess when I first read it I took it as "give us a chance to commit along with Snider before being done with the recruitment." But re-reading it I think you're right.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 09:09 AM) Eh, maybe. Of course until you are a parent in that situation we dont know what its like. Not to mention having reporters hounding you all day long every day. They are bound to catch you saying something stupid at some point. Agreed. When you're being asked questions by reports, "we" are involved in the decision.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 12:21 PM) OK, I read an interview of Lorne Michaels from Sat Night Live where he said they make fun of Republicans because they have more of a sense of humor. According to him, republicans are more likely to laugh with the skits than Dems are, who he said tend to take everything personal. Thinking about the humor angle, I heard on the radio this morning that several Democratic groups are REALLY pissed at AshleyMadison.com due to a billboard that makes fun of a few Democrats. Here is the billboard. Lol, that's a great ad. Didn't they recently find out that that whole site is a scam?

Ban him! Insinuating foul language will not be tolerated!!!

You guys hear Sager's report last night that Boozer was supposedly told by Garpax that he would not be traded "for sure" before the deadline and his contract would not be bought out next year unless it was to bring in a superstar? I wonder (1) if that's true and (2) why Boozer is getting mouthy all of a sudden. He's been so good the last few years of being quiet and playing his game. Why the sudden need to talk to the media?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 09:29 AM) Wasn't there a floral business in the Northeast that was fined and punished for refusing to do business with a gay couple looking for wedding floral arrangements? Washington, unless there was a similar incident: http://www.katu.com/news/local/Florist-sue...-203664121.html It's a dumb law, because they can already refuse to serve them (unless a state law says otherwise), so Kansas is just trying to be proactive about preventing those types of lawsuits. As I said in the Dem thread, it's basically SYG laws - not necessary because of existing self defense laws, but it's trying to prescribe rights instead of having to infer rights.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 09:10 AM) Just because there is other offensive things on the internet, doesnt mean this site should allow similar offensive things. I mean, should we allow people to start uploading porn on soxtalk because Pornhub exists? that is just silly. There were many straws, many conversations, as there are about many things happening on this site. What Duke posted was akin to having a "hot babe thread." It doesn't rise to the level of posting porn, but it's not 19th century dinner conversation material either. Sorry, I don't recall anything he said as being so offensive he shouldn't be allowed to post. I dunno, going back years, I've always felt this board was too damned sensitive. As I said before, it's the freaking internet. Don't read it if you don't like it. Hit ignore. It's not like you're forced to read what he says as if he's standing in front of you screaming in your face. He started discussions, usually with extreme nonsense while the rest of us discussed the actual issues/topics in a more civilized, reasonable way. It'd be one thing if he were attacking people constantly, but as far as I can recall, he never did that.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 08:29 AM) lol, to you, no. Were you offended? Seriously? Don't get me wrong, he said some awful things, but go to youtube comments and other websites for truly repulsive stuff. I don't think Duke ever got to THAT point. I too would like to know what was the final straw.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 14, 2014 -> 08:26 AM) Im curious why you guys are ok with it because he really believes in what he is saying? Multiple people on this site have reported his comments as offensive, racist, and sexist, and have gotten into long and terrible arguments with him. Now that he is gone, its ok because he really believed in what he was saying? That is an interesting position to take It's the internet man. Is anything really offensive on the internet?

Irrational fan base opinion: he loved illinois from the start, he got dissed, and he had every opportunity to tell Groce & Co. no thanks, no longer interested. But he didn't and his dad's comments make it seem like all is forgiven. The dude's a coach, he knows how this stuff works. It was s***ty of Groce not to give him a "sorry but this other kid committed" call, but that's the past.

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 04:56 PM) The thing is, I'm not convinced that Duke was a troll. Maybe. I think it's just as possible that those are his actual opinions at this point in his life. I'm with you. I think he was sincere but then became known as the guy with extreme opinions so he posted without a filter. The 'Buster quickly died without his extreme opinions starting "real" discussions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 03:54 PM) Surely you could cite something backing up the idea that it's so easy to prove employment discrimination claims that companies routinely either just settle or give the job to the obviously less qualified person, where the obviously less qualified person is obviously the minority. The article is from 2004, anyway. Do we have some reason to expect a big spike in employment discrimination suits and their success rate since then? And yes, the article explicitly and repeatedly talks about lawsuit vs. actually-going-to-trial rates over time. It's all over the entire article so I'm not sure how you could miss it. You're missing the point - it doesn't matter if you can prove the case, if the case is s*** and it's going to cost you 15k to get a dismissal, 9 out of 10 defendants will just pay to settle the case. This is routine. I do this for a living. Sometimes the Plaintiff continues the case anyway and loses, sometimes they don't. But that's the general procedure for nearly every case filed that deals with discrimination. This article on page 440 says 70% of cases settle and "more and more do so with the passing years." If my job is any indication, I guarantee you this has gone up. Yes, I consider 2004 old. It's using data from 1979 through 2001. edit: and it really shouldn't be a surprise that these cases are difficult to win. Proving overt racism is difficult. Employers have had decades of time to hammer in policies to prevent discrimination from occurring. If it's overt, an employer is going to pay. If it's crap, it'll get dismissed for a small settlement or dismissed. The rest are "arguable" and are difficult to show. You have to infer what's going on.

That's a pretty bad article for a number of reasons. (1) it's old, (2) you have to look at that stuff regionally as well. I guarantee you Cook County and the ILND will have different numbers than other jurisdictions around the country. Also, does that even address settlements? Looks to me like it just addresses winning/losing at arbitration or at trial.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 03:36 PM) Do you have any sort of citation for that? My understanding is that discrimination lawsuits are actually pretty damn hard to win. Don't worry, jenks has assured me that The Market will correct this discrimination! But, I wonder, how does your claim that minorities get all the promotions square with actual data on income, hiring, promotions, etc. more broadly? As far as I can tell, minorities are still heavily underrepresented as you move up the career and income ladders. If the burden of proof really is so low and nobody wants to fight lawsuits (there's always lawsuits?), wouldn't we see a lot more minorities actually getting promotions? They may be hard to win, but they're incredibly easy to settle. If it's going to cost a business 10k to defend a case only to settle it for 15k 6 months later, just give the person the job and be done with it. This is an incredibly common business practice. In fact, I have a buddy who writes insurance policies for businesses and for discrimination lawsuits they just assume anyone who files a claim gets a minimum of 15k, regardless of the strength of the case.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 03:33 PM) Wait I thought you were okay with discrimination? Why should you care if HH was allegedly fired/passed over because someone in a protected class threatened a lawsuit? The Market will correct this. Though oddly that pressure of lawsuits wouldn't be there if people were be allowed to hire/fire who they please...

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 03:21 PM) So discrimination against one person is fine so long as it isn't systemic? If you were a gay white man he would have supported you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 03:19 PM) Man white people just have it so tough these days. I bet if you looked at employment, income and wealth statistics or numerous studies on hiring practices, you'd find evidence of systemic anti-white racism. You're literally poo-pooing away a guy complaining about ACTUAL reverse discrimination results that he was personally subjected to. And I'm the blind one?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:49 PM) I guess it's hilarious if it's never happened to you--three times. Sorry, history says you're the least oppressed class, so your problems don't matter. Let's please focus on the REAL victims.

For the record, i'm not defending gay discrimination. I'm defending all discrimination. Which everyone does everyday.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) So why is this Kansas law necessary? It's an additional law that you seem a-ok with. Your personal blindness to anti-LGBT bigotry is your problem, but it's not justification for opposition to protection from anti-LGBT bigotry. And why is SSM a separate issue? It demonstrates that anti-LGBT bigotry is alive and well. I think it's s***ty that businesses can do those things as well. If you can't run a business without firing or refusing service to someone because they're gay, I don't see why you should have any right to run a business. Again, your ignorance of anti-LGBT bigotry is your personal problem. Well, you're right, I don't think it's necessary. But I don't think SYG laws are really necessary either when you have self defense laws already in place. But they want clarification on it, so whatever. That's up to that state to do so.

I'd like to know the number of gays who are fired for being gay and how that relates to people who are fired for any other reason. Show me the numbers that gay people are denied entry into businesses compared to others. Show me the numbers proving this and I'll gladly admit i'm wrong.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) What you're saying is that you support being able to fire someone for being gay or being able to refuse them service in a public business for being gay. You're more concerned about potential extra lawsuits than the impact those actions would have. You'll trivialize homophobic discrimination and pretend it's just like being "anti-white sox." You'll then extend the idea that LGBT should be protected from bigotry to meaning that literally everything should be a protected class and that business should have zero hiring/firing power, doing a fantastic job of knocking down strawmen instead of justifying your indifference-at-best towards the anti-LGBT discrimination that is alive and well in this country. Ignore my lawsuit comment. That's not really a concern in this. I'm just pointing out that in general I hate additional laws when they're not needed. And sorry, I don't see gays being some discriminated group to the extent it warrants protection. Marriage you have a point but that's a separate issue. You can point to history, but so can other groups that experienced and continue to experience discrimination. It makes no sense that as an owner of a business I can fire you because you smell bad or that you just piss me off one day but I can't if I don't want to work with you because you're gay. It's just one of a million characteristics that can be liked or disliked. If it was a national problem where gays were being denied employment or denied entry in droves, i'd have a different opinion. But you and I both know that's not reality.