Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 05:11 PM) Donald Trump Jr literally tweeted out proof that they at least attempted to collude with Russians to influence the election. Link? He had a meeting with someone who ended up being a known representative of the government. I don't buy he was meeting with someone about adoption, but I don't think there's any proof as to what they talked about and whether it was about specific actions in regards to the election. These are all greedy, corrupt mother f***ers, and I'd believe it was about business before the election 100 times out of 100. In what regard? What did they discuss? What did Manafort request and what did Putin offer? That's the problem here, you keep saying it was to influence the election but there's zero evidence of that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 04:51 PM) Ok, just ignore my occasional use of hyperbole and address the issue. His campaign manager is at the center of this. His own son tweeted out proof that he, Manafort and Kushner willingly and eagerly met with Russians promising information on Clinton. If it's shown that one or more senior members of his campaign were definitely in bed with foreign agents and conspired with them to influence our elections, does it matter if Trump did not personally know? Wouldn't that just reward "won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest" plausible deniability while his subordinates carried everything out? You probably follow this stuff more than me, but I've yet to read anything linking their conversations/contacts with Russian agents to conspiracy to influence our elections. That's where you've skipped over into conspiracy land IMO. Manafort and Flynn made impermissible/illegal contact, but to what end we don't yet know. And in fact, it seems like this Manafort stuff is about his work in Ukraine, before he became involved in the Trump campaign.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 04:42 PM) Does it matter if Trump didn't do it personally if his entire campaign apparatus was working with a foreign power to undermine our elections and get him into office? That still would challenge the whole legitimacy of the election. To answer K's question, I don't think Congress will do anything beyond expressing "grave concerns," and his base will flatly refuse to believe any of it. "his entire campaign" is a bit of a stretch.

QUOTE (Jack Parkman @ Sep 18, 2017 -> 11:26 PM) The purpose of protests is to disrupt. It is why one protests injustice. It is supposed to be uncomfortable for the majority, and it is perfectly legal based on the constitution. The issue isn't the protesting itself; it is the fact that the police don't allow it. Where the hell is the ACLU? The problem is that most people want to maintain the status quo and don't actually want to help other people. Modern American society denigrates the qualities that make us decent human beings(compassion for others and community) and rewards the behavior of sociopaths and narcissists. Look no further than the man who is running the country. Society rewards the power hungry, ruthless, and cruel, and always has. Until we as humans evolve our thinking about these things, we will continue down a path of species self destruction. Come on, this is so freakin' short sighted. I wouldn't label any of the presidents of my lifetime (Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama) to be any of those things.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 04:34 PM) Obviously the investigation is still ongoing but what if and I am saying what if, they find Trump was involved with the Russians on the suspected level people claim? Do his supporters still back him? Civil War? This is genuine question. Thing is no one that I've read/heard actually thinks Trump did any of this personally. And given the massive leaks that came out of his admn from even before he took office, i'd honestly be very shocked if any evidence came out that he did.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 11:00 AM) No one had said that genocide of North Korea will become necessary, period. Again, any president in the past 15 years saying that military strikes are on the table is talking about the destruction of the regime in NK, and implicit in that is the whole country will be affected/destroyed. "Genocide" is a nice bit of editorializing btw.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 10:37 AM) Et tu Jenks? Here is the summary of Obama's interview from when it happened: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obam...sea-aggression/ Notice the headline is "Obama on why the US wont 'destroy North Korea'" Its clear from the context that Obama is just stating a fact, we could destroy NK, and then follows it up with, why we wont. There is no reasonable way to interpret that as a threat because he isnt addressing NK directly, just discussing the reality of the situation. (edit) It seems that you are backing off now and admitting that actually is "different" as now you are saying its "unique" which by definition means "different." If something is unique, it cant be the same. It's unique because to my knowledge no one has said it at the UN.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 09:53 AM) 'We have the capability to do this, but it would be bad for reasons X and Y' versus 'We will have no choice but to commit genocide and kick off yet another major refugee crisis' Those are actually two very different things. Pretending that things are never actually different and that both sides are actually always equally bad/wrong is part of the reason why our politics is so broken. Obama (and Bush and Clinton before him) did not issue a threat that said we would have no choice but to commit genocide; Trump did. Look at my original post, i'm clearly stating there's a difference in their delivery and audience. I'm not "pretending" anything. You, meanwhile, continue to overstate that every non-democrat is the absolute worst at everything at all times in everything they ever say or do. THAT is a bigger reason why our system is broken. You jump to the extremes with this crap CONSTANTLY. Yes, it's unique AND terrible that Trump did this in the manner in which he did it. The message itself, however, is nothing new. That's my point. For 30 years US Presidents have talked about using military force against North Korea. Implicit in that talk is the destruction of NK since that's the only end that could come of it and everyone knows it. Trump's more direct about it, but everything said by the past presidents have been threats. They're meant as threats and taken as threats.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 09:26 AM) Acknowledging the possibility and existence of military force and threatening to "totally destroy" a country of 25 million people, in addition to whatever damage SK and Japan would face plus the humanitarian crisis it'd kick off as refugees flooded into SK and China, is different from what any past President has said. Don't buy into the bulls*** quote-mining that the WH is engaging in on what Obama said. The rest of the quote and the context of the speech as well as Trump's previous statements makes it clearly different. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...y-even-for-him/ And f*** John Kelly and his "shamed head hanging." He's 100% complicit in this. Yeah, yeah, #itsdifferent.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 19, 2017 -> 07:18 PM) I'll never buy one of those fancy cameras for that reason. I hate carrying crap...like hate it, so while the pictures are pretty amazing that those cameras can do, the fact is, I know I'll never carry the damn thing around when I really want it. Quality on phones is good enough and convenience is absolutely amazing (not to mention ability to synch to cloud or amazon prime photo's, whatever it might be). So many great action shots I can get with my kids that are taken totally at random vs. a camera I know I'd never carry around. On a sidenote, any good ways / solutions people have relative to organizing photos and keeping archives clean (with my kids, my wife especially, is notoriously bad at staying organized and I want to have a good way of organizing and maintaining photos). My phone (galaxy s8+) has a great camera and works for the vast majority of day to day stuff. But the image quality doesn't really compare to a modern DSLR, especially when it comes to fast action and low light situations. That's a huge issue when you have kids. Zoom is also very, very limited. Lugging a camera around can be a pain though, I can totally understand that. I'm with you on organizing photos. I think I posted here before that I used to use Picassa and I loved it. I have tens of thousands of pictures and video on my computer and they're not organized very well (lazy uploading on my part). I have multiples folders for different cameras, different phones, etc. Picassa was great because it read the metadata for each file and sorted all of the files by date. But now that Picassa is gone i'm still searching for a better program. I picked up Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Elements (photoshop for video). It comes with an organizer program that is basically the same as Picassa. It's not as good and i'm having issues uploading a lot of folders. Anything with a corrupt file or a file extension it doesn't like, like .avi, kills the sync process and it never tells you what file it gets stuck on. But, for the 85% of my stuff that I did get synced, they're all there, sorted by date. In terms of back-up, I have three systems - an internal HD that stores everything, an external hard drive dedicated as a backup, and a WD MyCloud NAS system that's dedicated as the main backup (it's a whole separate little box with a hard drive and an internet connection). Basically everything gets downloaded into the internal HD and the MyCloud automatically syncs it on a weekly basis. And then i'll occasionally grab all those files and back it up onto the external drive manually.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2017 -> 08:21 AM) Probably Ghaddafi or some other dictator like that. But the coverage of Trump's threat to genocide an entire nation of people is phrased with "tough words" and "strong message." I think you're going a little overboard here. Yes, Trump is more direct and threatening about it, but it's not like that hasn't been said before by a US President. Obama used those very words (edit: albeit not in front of the UN assembly), and I think dating back to Clinton the threat of military force has always been put out there. That said, this picture summed up the whole speech to me.

Whelp, my Sunday afternoon just opened up. Will they win 5 games this year?

Ugh, huge letdown

Well well well!!

Whelp, that should do it. USF is terrible but they're going to win big

That unnecessary roughness call was a joke.

I get the oline blows, but how about maybe a roll out?

This is hurting my eyes.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 15, 2017 -> 12:17 PM) If you think the purpose of trading Butler is to get equal NBA talent I guess I could see that, but if the purpose is to get the best future assets to set off rebuilding a championship team, I don't know how you don't see the unprotected Nets pick as an example of the single most important thing the bulls needed to start collecting. Instead at the end of draft night they had less picks than when they started. How they are still around... They got a #7. I think the Nets pick will be in that range (unless the ping pong Gods say otherwise). I don't see it being demonstrably worse, especially if what the pundits say is true, i.e., that this upcoming draft won't be as good.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Sep 15, 2017 -> 12:01 PM) 1) Cleveland traded a defensive liability in Kyrie himself. Significant downgrade in that department? No. OK, but IT is still an injured guy who is a one year rental. I wouldn't want any part of deciding whether he is going to be my center piece player going forward. If he's not, then what value does he really bring? Yeah, for the Cavs its a good one year rental because they're a contender and he adds to that. For the Bulls he'd be worthless. Great, he's a role player. Do the Bulls need role players? No, they need prospects. We'll see. Sure, it's a gamble. But again, who's offering up young prospects for super stars? What other deal was out there to do that? So what, he's been a decent NBA player. He's a contributor. And again, he's a young prospect for a young, rebuilding team. I think it's a bit early to give up on him. He very well could tank. Upside is still there IMO. I 100% agree throwing in the 1st rounder and selling the 2nd were horrible decisions. But that's not what we're debating here. I would happily take what the Bulls got over what the Celtics got. What the Cavs got is good for them, not a rebuilding Bulls team.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 15, 2017 -> 11:59 AM) I hate statements like this. This has been going on for years in this thread. The assumption that what has transpired was inevitable. This organization "did their best" to try and put together a championship roster and failed. "Did their best" to hire good coaches and failed. "Did their best" to trade for superstars and failed. "Did their best" to sign top free agents and failed. But when they "did their best" to trade a top 15 player in the game and did demonstrably worse than a championship winning front office with a comparable asset that did better, it's "What more could the bulls have done?" They could have acquired better assets for years. They could have drafted other, better assets for years. They could have trade Butler sooner. They could have traded Butler later. I don't disagree with any of this except for the "demonstrably worse" comment. I still don't see the return being "demonstrably worse" than what Cleveland got.

QUOTE (Quin @ Sep 15, 2017 -> 11:38 AM) Yeah, more like trying to assess the situation and keep the public informed on what's going on. Less "cash in" and more "this is a massive story that we're going to justify a massive bill we'll lose money on to do our jobs as journalists." But you know, you do you. With how some have thrown around "personal attack" defense around here, I could spin that this way in that you're going at me personally, but not worth my time or lowering our standards. Oh please. Stop being so sensitive. You don't think the media loves this stuff and covers it knowing that people will watch hoping to see the train wreck? Yes, it's absolutely newsworthy and yes, it should be covered. I'm not saying it shouldn't be, just that the media lives for this stuff.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 15, 2017 -> 11:22 AM) The police SUV also rammed into some signs and poles. High-speed chases are dumb, dangerous and unnecessary in all but the most extreme cases. The risk to others isn't worth it. So should police back off at some point? Let the person go?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 15, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) So the sentence for causing property damage should be execution on the spot? Judge Dredd America. Nah, but you can't deny he wasn't a threat to public safety the way he was driving.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 15, 2017 -> 11:18 AM) But by the time he was murdered, the car was stopped. He wasn't a threat to public safety (and police conducting high speed chases, especially in residential/surface street areas, is extremely dangerous and many departments have stopped them). The cop alleges that Smith had a gun in the car. The gun recovered from the scene only had Stockley's DNA on it, not Smith's. Yeah i'm not saying he's in the right or that he should have been found not guilty, just saying when you run away from police and start endangering the lives of others, you shouldn't be surprised if you end up dead. I'm not sure why people think it's a good idea. And i'm sure that's a big reason why juries find these guys not guilty. "They had it coming" is an easy justification.