Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 3, 2013 -> 12:24 PM) The reasons I feel Tebow is entitled 1) Home schooled but played HS football, which I hate in principle. But he refused to play anything but QB so he left his first team. He acts like it's his god given right to QB. 2) the "thanks for that" commercial Yeah, that's pretty weak.

One of the few where I thought everyone was really funny. Hader's thing was probably the weakest, but still had some good laughs.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 1, 2013 -> 09:15 PM) Exactly. Griffin is religious, also an ESPN star and former Heisman winner. The difference is Griffin isn't a douchebag and doesn't act entitled. I'm annoyed by the coverage of Tebow as much as everyone else, but he acts the complete opposite of entitled. Can you give an example? He's been given nothing easy since being drafted in the league and he's never demanding playing time or more money or any of that.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Sep 2, 2013 -> 09:56 PM) Yea, Jenks not sure why you laughed at the Black updates, that was pretty well known going into the last month or two that we were leading for him. Cliff is a whole different beast in terms of his recruitment. I think we have a legitimate shot at him, but I wouldn't say we have the best odds of any team. I still think he goes to Kansas. It was more the 12 hour period of time when the insider experts all changed their picks from Florida to Illinois seemingly out of the blue. I could see a handful of people knowing an actual source, but the fact that so many changed their guess just seemed like herd mentality.

Some buzz about Alexander and Illinois. Two "insiders" just updated their picks to UI. I laughed at them for the Black change and they ended up being right, so who knows. Black and Alexander would sure speed up the rebuild.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) Well then I guess we just let them die and send some money and condolence cards. Sorry, not our problem, but here is a bread basket. I don't get your extremism here. Atrocities are committed in China. Should we risk the lives of millions of Americans so we can save them? Same with NK? Or other countries around the world? At what point do you accept the fact that fixing X humanitarian problem is not worth X number of lives lost?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) Let me put it this way. I think that intervening in Syria sounds moronic. I can't think of a single way in which it will work out positively until we're prepared to put an occupying force in there. And I would never in 4.56 billion years have thought to cite differences in "skin tone" as a reason why. It never would have crossed my mind. Not in any way, shape, or form. Look, so long as he's saying let them deal with it because it's their problem, not ours, and by doing so pointing out the obvious fact that they are different people (physically, politically, socially, ethnically, etc) then I don't have a problem with what he said. I read his comment in that way because I don't have hard-on for calling people racists. If he didn't mean it that way, and he literally meant "i will never go to war or intervene in another country because they're not white," then I totally agree with you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 02:54 PM) Yes, I got after him for viewing one human as less valuable than another simply based on their nationality. It's a disgusting attitude. Yes, I got after him for viewing one human as less valuable than another because of their religion. It's also a disgusting attitude. You still felt the need to spring to his defense, make up a bunch of dumb strawmen and then conveniently ignore the incredibly racist s*** he said. Yes, I do believe that Alpha is racist. This is just the latest blatant example of his racism. That you still don't think somebody who said what he just said is racist is pretty sad. WHERE DID HE SAY THEY WERE LESS VALUABLE?!!!!! Because he doesn't want Americans to put themselves in yet another costly war? Seriously?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 02:50 PM) No, instead he had to throw up a bunch of dumb strawmen and pretend Alpha said completely different things. Pretty sad that jenks felt the need to rush to the defense of someone who clearly and openly stated that he values one human's life less than another's because of where they live, what their skin color is and what religion they follow. Jesus. Look at what he said: How is what I said different? First sentence - they're not my friend, family or countrymen, so they're not as important to me. Is that really wrong? Seriously? What am I missing there? It's wrong to think complete strangers an entire world away are not as important as those you see on a daily basis? Second sentence - it's their f***ing problem, not ours, let them deal with it or let people like them deal with it, i.e., people from their side of the world who are more similar to them. Not Americans who literally have nothing in common and who will inevitably be viewed as being in the wrong (as he pointed out in a follow up post). Where the hell did he say "Let's those f***ers rot, just a bunch of brown muslim mother f***ers!!" Does it make you feel good to call people racists or bigots? It really must because I seriously can't understand why you have to be THAT person every f***ing conversation on this board.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) It's impressive how you could write all of this and completely ignore the fact that we jumped on him for justifying staying out because of the color of people's skin. Both SS and I seem to have little interest in joining this conflict, seemingly in agreement with you, but both of us were disgusted by the person who justified staying out by noting the differences in skin color. Apparently you couldn't defend that either so you didn't pay any attention to it. Because yeah, it was that disgusting. SS went after him for more than just skin color, which is why I responded the way I did. You guys, SS, the "-ism" police chief, in particular, just get on people for that s*** way more than is necessary. Do you honestly believe Alpha is a racist guy? I don't. So I didn't read what he said that way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 12:40 PM) Valuing your friends and family more is one thing, obviously, but then you go on to add nationalism, racism and religious bigotry to your list of reasons why they are worth less as human beings to you. OMG! Someone prefers their country over another. The horror! Zomg! Someone wants Middle Eastern people to deal with Middle Eastern problems! How awful! Jesus Christ SS this holier-than-thou crap from you is so over the top sometimes. edit: apologies in advance for invoking a religious figure. Don't accuse me of being a religious bigot please!!!! edit 2: oh s***, Jesus was a male. Please don't call me sexist either! edit 3: but Jesus was most likely brown, so that's probably racist against white people, but eh, who the f*** cares, amiright?

Republicans hate black people and freedom! Rabble, rabble!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 10:16 AM) There's no evidence that Assad is "straight-up gassing his own people." There's evidence that chemical weapons have been used, probably by both sides, against two warring factions. Let's not conflate that, as horrible as it is, with a situation like what Saddam did to the Kurds. Of course context matters, and just because no two situations are identical does that mean that no two situations are comparable, or that one set of situations might be comparable to each other but not to other situations. Really, explain to me how Stalin's purges in Russia are at all relevant to the situation faced in Syria. Again, just like the DPRK comparison, it only makes the argument for intervention worse. Foreign intervention during one of Stalin's purges in the 50's mean global nuclear warfare. Intervention in the DPRK means tens of millions of dead Koreans, North and South. WWII had nothing at all to do with humanitarian intervention and the opportunities to go that route were passed up. None of these are anything at all like Syria, or Lybia, or Bosnia or Somalia or Sudan or Rwanda. But that's the problem, he COULD, at any moment, and then this entire situation gets ignored as an outlier. I get your point, I think you can say generally intervention may end up being worse than non-intervention based on prior actions, but you still have to look at the unique situation going on in Syria and make your determination there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 10:05 AM) By the way, I'm still waiting for you to present any reason at all that you believe the US bombing Syria will result in fewer overall civilian deaths. You argue that the DPRK is a counter-point to a non-intervention argument. Should we start bombing there? What about Myanmar? Iran? Egypt? DRC? Are we going to start bombing every country with s***ty leaders in order to save them? Wouldn't the intervention in Libya be a pretty good counter-point to this? According to Wiki, the UN reported 60 deaths as a result of the coalition's involvement. I'm guessing that number would be much higher if the civil war had continued.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 10:04 AM) NK is ignored because it's not at all similar to Syria or what anyone thinks of for an interventionist conflict. I really don't know why you think they're remotely similar. Why is study in scare quotes? What familiarity do you actually have with common statistical analysis and how to handle data? Yes, Rwanda was an awful situation. This study isn't an argument that every single possible scenario for intervention ever will cause more civilian deaths than non-intervention will. It's a study that finds that intervention is more likely to cause more civilian deaths. Individual scenarios can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis with additional information. That's because you can't understand the basic difference between 1) full-scale global war (in which humanitarian intervention was barely even a consideration!), 2) oppressive regime not engaged in genocide or an internal rebellion, and 3) oppressive regime engaged in genocide and/or internal rebellion. Why is WWII relevant? Why is DPRK relevant? How are either of them anything at all like Syria or any of the other types of conflicts included in this study? Going back to Lenin or Stalin's purges is, again, irrelevant because the context for intervention is completely different in those time periods and with the countries and actors involved. The world is too damned busy talking about who we can bomb next, which village we can burn so that it can be saved instead of actual humans. If the context matters, I think comparing this situation to any other situation is pretty pointless as they are all different. Assad could keep gasing his own people, or worse, straight up bombing entire suburbs and you could still argue intervention isn't worth it because this study you read says it may cost more lives. IMO these situations have too many variables to use any prior engagement as a reliable predictor.

I find it interesting that the white house was claiming that it was certain that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack but are now backtracking (along with with the British). Why the need to rush that judgment before all the facts were known? Edit: sorry, got my quotes mixed up. Obama said it was for sure, the various government agencies are saying it's not a "slam dunk."

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 02:22 PM) What is the age of the son? 14 months, almost 15 by the time we go.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 01:51 PM) I'm thinking it might make sense to grab these up now before pretty much every streaming app embraces it and they quadruple the price. Did you test it out with Netflix? How's the resolution? HD on a 10" tablet is quite a bit different from HD on a 46" television. Is it? I haven't really noticed that. The HD looked the same to me as netflix through my samsung TV or ps3.

I think of one of the NCAA Football games, probably 2002 or 2004. I played the crap out of those back in the day. But i'm sure most people think of Madden.

My wife and I and our 14 month old son are road-tripping it to the east coast in a couple weeks. The wife wants to rent a house outside of Charleston on Kiawah Island and just do day trips in South Carolina. I would prefer to start in Virginia and work our way down to Savannah while hitting up a bunch of historical sites/awesome seafood places. Anyone do an east coast/carolinas beach trip recently? Any suggestions on where to go/what to do? Other than eating good food, my only other plan is to play a few rounds of golf, which I can already tell will be easy to find. Also, this will be our first long road trip with my son. We're usually driving to/from wisconsin or michigan or iowa on the weekends, so he's accustomed to the 2.5-3.5 hour trip and GENERALLY does ok. But i'm really wondering how he's going to do with 6-7 hours, or worse if we decide to try and get it all done in one day (13 hours, but probably 14 or more with stops). I bought a headrest mount for my tablet and plan to load it up with mickey mouse clubhouse for bouts of boredom. Anyone else have suggestions on how to handle kids on these types of trips?

So my chromecast order finally came in last night. Pretty sleek device with some potential, especially for $35. At this point it's basically a more convenient (i.e., wireless) way to play netflix or youtube on my bedroom TV, not a full-fledged phone/tablet-with-all-the apps-on-TV device. I got a 2nd one for travel purposes. It'd be great if they eventually get HBO GO, Sunday Ticket, and the DirecTV app on there. They also need to add support for casting mobile chrome content, not just desktop chrome content.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Aug 28, 2013 -> 07:18 PM) No, not Backbreaker, I am assuming he meant 2K All-Pro Football 2008. It was a full fledged sim football game, not arcade-like. Yep, that's the one I'm thinking of. It was ok, but wasn't very polished. MLB the Show has added the same stuff Madden has - updated visuals, a few tweaks to the franchise/career/RTTS modes, roster updates, etc. but is otherwise the same. It's also an entirely different animal since you control every player and are not really dependent on the AI to assist you. Madden has had 25 games and although there has been change and innovation over the years, it's still a broken game in many respects. Yes, it's 10 times more complicated to write the code for the game, but i'd much rather they fix blocking/tackling/physics engine issues than provide me with a new "skin" to the menus. And i'm sorry, but the announcing team was awful last year and apparently its even worse this year (I get my game tonight so i'll be able to tell right away). That is also inexcusable for a franchise with endless amounts of money and very little work done year to year. Obviously Madden is still a good to great game. It's just annoying that they can't fix the important s*** before addressing the fluff. They've been brilliant at marketing the game every year (or it's really, really easy because it's the only NFL game out there), but it's still kind of surprising they sell as many games as they do when I know a lot of people wait 1-2 years before buying a new one.

Shocking, you didn't even read it (proving my point about a study about gravity): Edit: and my point was YOUR interpretation of studies that YOU don't agree with generally, not this one study specifically. The facts could be 100% accurate, the methodology could be 100% acceptable, and you'd still complain that one of the authors is a leading conservative in X field and therefore has no credibility. I've seen your respond/defend studies a million times on this board and not once have you ever agreed with a study concluding something positively for conservative issues and vice versa for defending liberal ones.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 28, 2013 -> 04:02 PM) So, if there's not even a strong correlation between gun ownership rates and crime rates (more guns=more crime sometimes, more guns=less crime other times), what does that say about possible causality versus other contributing factors (e.g. there's been a lot of research on the effects of lead exposure, it's correlation to increased aggression, and substantial drops in crime rates as lead exposure levels have dropped over the decades). I think everyone accepts that. We all know economics is the biggest factor for crime. They admit that in this study. I think this is much more defending against the baseless "more guns will mean more people die" arguments made by Balta and others, not "less regulations and more guns means less crime." They point that out and then almost immediately state that it's not really shown one way or the other in the data they were looking at.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 28, 2013 -> 03:58 PM) John Lott's studies, which that "nugget" references, have been heavily questioned. The rest is a series of assertions which may be factually accurate (I don't know) but don't really tell me much. Even if it is true that states with the strictest gun control measures have more crime than states with the laxest gun control measures, we need much more than one paragraph to examine the causality and other contributing factors. This newsletter article doesn't do that. I could quote you a study saying gravity is real and if you didn't believe gravity is real you'd find something to complain about in the study. Science is very much like law in that respect. I can interpret and discredit any case I want depending on what side I want to argue.