Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) why on earth would the defense counsel think this was a good idea? Yeah. That is odd. Unless he was trying to make a point that they should be wary of bringing in outside information into their deliberations. But that was a weird way of getting to that point.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 12:04 PM) This will be the first time in the LeBron/Miami era that the Bulls will have 5 quality NBA starters, not sure how you don't think that makes a huge difference. Did we get someone to replace Boozer?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) Yes, because that's happened so many times before. I was purposefully giving you the two extremes.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 11:21 AM) So if the Heat had beaten the Spurs in 5 games instead of 7, they'd be more or less beatable next year? I just don't understand why it matters how many games it took. Are you being serious here? Of course that matters. Sweeping every series to a title is different than being forced to go through multiple game 7's. The Heat are vulnerable. They're beatable. They had a lot of luck this go around which means they're much closer to being just a good team instead of the best team.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) He genuinely changed his mind on the idea that blacks were not equal to whites and could never live as free equals among them. He changed his mind on whether slavery should be confined to the south or abolished. He changed his mind on whether the federal government had any power to do anything about it in the first place. And he was hypocritical, overstating his devotion to abolition in previous years in later speeches. Seriously, go read that book, I think you'd really enjoy it. In the books i've read on Lincoln, i've never read that he believed that blacks were not equal with whites. He had a very realistic opinion that slaves were not going to be accepted into society and it was going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for them to fully integrate. And yes, he changed his mind on if slavery should be allowed in the south in order to preserve the union but that was because he knew that it would eventually die out. It was much more a "should we intervene in this issue or let it die out naturally" argument, not whether it was acceptable or not. As a teenager and young lawyer he wrote about how he believed slavery was awful. I'll check the book out and see what it says. I don't doubt people can change their minds. But again, i'm talking about politicians who debated over a bill and then signed it knowing full well what they were doing was denying federal recognition of marriage for homosexuals, and now they're claiming that it's great that the awful bill they signed is no more. I think it's just further proof that politicians are awful, corrupt people who sell their souls to stay in office. They have no principles, one way or the other.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 10:58 AM) Rob Portman used to be against gay marriage. Then he had a life experience that fundamentally changed his mind. Not everyone requires a close family member to come out to have their minds changed. I don't know why you think this is such an impossible task. And, again, that their statements on DOMA going down is what caused you to get outraged without saying a word about how outrageous DOMA and the continued conservative efforts against equality actually are says a lot. I'm not really outraged, I just hate politicians who act like saints when we all know they're not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) Lincoln changed his mind on the issues of slavery and racial equality substantially over the course of his life. Certainly over the last four years, let alone the last 17. It was meant as an obvious example of people genuinely changing their minds. Jenks, what you're saying simply isn't supported by reality. Tens of millions of Americans have changed their mind on gay rights since the 90's. Why do you find it impossible to believe that one of the politicians also did so? But he didn't genuinely change his mind that slavery was awful and blacks were not subhuman. He changed his opinion on how strongly he should advocate for the abolishment of slavery. That's entirely different than this issue where guys voted yes for something and now claim it was so awful to do so. Millions of Americans didn't vote for DOMA. Voting on a bill requires an extra step of affirming what you believe is good policy for the country. With a vote you've told your constituents and the country that you feel it's important enough to protect marriage and define it in a particular way. The context of the entire issue has not changed at all in 17 years. If it was discriminatory now, it was discriminatory then and it's ridiculous for these guys to try and use the decision for their own political gain.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 10:18 AM) They should have phrased it along the lines of "I have seen why I was wrong to enact DOMA in the first place" etc etc but I don't think it's as bad as you want it to be. Or rather, there are likely way better examples of dems and the GOP completely reversing course on something. And that explanation would still be bulls*** to me. You guys are smart, I can't believe you buy that crap. This issue isn't about a change in science or a change in understanding. They voted to keep homosexuals from being recognized as married under Federal law with the full knowledge of all of the arguments for and against. And now they're praising the SC decision as if they had no part in it. It's disgusting, and yes, there are a million other similar example of why politicians are awful human beings. This is just the latest example.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) I've no doubt that, for some of them, it was a strategic political choice. DOMA was always horrible and bigoted, but that wasn't the hill to die on politically in 1996. Hell, in 2004 anti-gay measures helped give conservatives electoral victories. Others I don't doubt have genuinely shifted their position since 1996. The country as a whole has shifted their opinion pretty dramatically in just the last 10 years. It's not that I'm lovingly embracing Reid or Schumer here. It's that, if you're going to talk about politicians being "awful, awful people" who are disgusting and can't stand on principle, well, maybe you should choose a better framing than people who no longer support explicitly bigoted policy that infringed on equal rights. There's nothing principled about sticking to bad, dumb, harmful and hateful ideas in light of new evidence, experiences and thinking. The disgusting, awful people are the ones who kept defending DOMA and who are going to keep pushing for state-level discrimination. Do you still hold every idea you believed in 17 years ago? What is wrong with genuinely changing your mind on something, as millions of Americans have done on gay marriage and did on gender and racial equality in previous decades? And did on slavery a few generations ago? I just find politicians to be awful human beings and this is just another example. Don't mistake my statements as meaning that because they're supportive of gay marriage/equality that they're awful, it's that they changed their mind and made statements as if they never voted against gay marraige/equality in the first place. That is what I find abhorrent. And yes, it's happened with a bazillion other issues. And yes some of my opinions have changed over the years but that has come with age and maturity. Or, in the case of abortion, I educated myself on the topic and actually lived through a pregnancy. These guys didn't change their mind because of their age, their maturity level, or some new found realization about homosexuality. The same arguments made today over gay rights were made in 1996. The same concerns people had about DOMA were present in 1996. But as far as I know he never voted to uphold slavery, so this comparison is irrelevant.

I mean come on guys, look at the quotes these guys are putting out there. "The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd." "By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union." You guys really think some great awakening happened over the last 17 years to change their minds from "nah, this isn't discrimination to keep gay people from marrying" to "omg! that was discrimination i'm so glad we've progressed!"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 09:41 AM) Seriously, your example of politicians being awful, awful human beings is that some people who voted for DOMA in 1996 are now glad that it is dead in 2013? Lincoln opposed negro equality and supported colonization plans for freed slaves well into his Presidency. Then, after truly coming to terms with the horrors of slavery, he came much closer to the Radicals' ideals of racial equality legally and socially. What an awful, disgusting person, refusing to stand on principles! Yeah, it's pretty f***ed up that people would vote for something and then years later pretend like the biggest injustice in the world being overturned is amazing. GMAFB. You voted for it, own up to it. Stop pretending like you didn't. Sorry, I don't buy this bulls*** change of heart crap that you readily accept from your party reps, including the President. If you wanted to protect "marriage" 17 years ago, you should want to protect it now. But you and I both know that personal opinions/principles were set aside at both ends of this issue by these politicians. Either they were against it in the beginning and still voted for it to get votes, or they were truly for it and now are pretending like it was terrible to keep their voters happy. And i'm not sure Lincoln ever opposed black equality. Where did you get that from? Privately he always felt slavery was an injustice and yes he once said he'd rather save the union over ending slavery for a brief period of time. He didn't do a complete flip flop on the issue though like these idiots today.

My wife got one of her friends to do it. She was great at being bossy, which is what you need.

Bill Russell is totally underrated.

This is precisely why all politicians are awful, awful human beings. Can't even stand on their principles. Sell their souls at every turn and pretend like the past never happened. Disgusting. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/demo...tion-93480.html

Ok, wife. She basically said the same thing to me.

I hate cars. I started to change my oil on Monday night and ended up breaking the oil drain plug. Half of the bolt was stuck in the pan. Had to take the day off work yesterday to take it to the dealer. $100 bucks later, it's fixed and my oil got changed. I guess I should be thankful the dealer didn't screw me by saying I needed a whole new oil pan, but it still sucks. There went all the savings for changing the oil myself the last few times.

im still in shock. what a finish! lots of fireworks in the western burbs.

Further proof the world is ending soon: statues are moving on their own! http://gawker.com/museum-cant-explain-why-...ampaign=morning

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 24, 2013 -> 04:57 PM) Jenks, All I can say is what I tell clients. If the worst thing that ever happens to you is that you spent to much on (insert insurance, incorporating) consider yourself lucky. I know that Id rather jinx myself by getting a generator that I never have to use, instead of one day waking up to an apocalypse and saying "Well at least I got a generator." No I know. It's better to have one in case I need it than wish I had one when I need it. My sister in Rock Island just sent me some pretty crazy pictures of her street. Might have had a tornado blow through as there are several really old trees that were knocked down.

STORMS A COMIN' EVERYONE TAKE COVER Good thing I have a brand new generator sitting in my garage that won't be used.

Lol, he asked for a tip.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 24, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) I'm not sure he knew where the floor was to even step on He was 19. It's a little too early to call him a bust.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2013 -> 01:57 PM) Trading Deng for a 2014 draft pick would not be "White Flagging it" for this year given what the roster looks like right now. Butler can slide into Deng's starting role, they still have players in the backcourt, and they would have the MLE to fill in the gaps without doing long-term damage to their financial flexibility. That said, Steve continues to be right; the front office just isn't that aggressive. Yes, we're obviously all talking in hypothetical land where the Bulls make a big move to better their team. However, for fun, I don't think getting rid of your second best offensive player makes much sense. Butler has shown flashes, but I dont know that he's there yet. You're asking him to replace an all-star. That's a little unfair. And again, that's raising the flag that you're not competing next year and you're really waiting for 2014-2015 when you can amnesty boozer and try to sign a big free agent. And I said 2015 because I think it'd be tough for 2/5th's of your starting line-up to gel in one season.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 24, 2013 -> 01:41 PM) It'd be equally pitiful offensively. It would also likely result in dumping Gibson somewhere since you'd have roughly $30 million tied up in Noah, Noel, Gibson and Mirotic for the near future. It also sets you back for 2013/14 since he's going to miss a large chunk of the season and probably take him at least two years to be an above-average starter. It's just not a big need for the Bulls. If he were some 20-10 threat, okay, but they already have two athletic bigs with questionable offensive abilities. I'm fine dumping Gibson. He's basically Noel right now, right? Plus defender and average (at best) offensively. For every highlight dunk Gibson gets he bricks 10 wide open 12 foot jumpers. I seriously hope last year was just a bad year for him. And if the Bulls are trading Deng for a prospect they're already raising the white flag on competing until 2014 (or more likely 2015). So you can be patient with Noel. But I agree, they have bigger needs. If they can get the #3 pick and get some frontcourt depth, that's the better move.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 24, 2013 -> 01:29 PM) Meh, everyone has a hole here or there, even the Heat. Besides, it's not like that trade would change anything up front unless they took Noel (which seems unlikely). Well I was thinking about that - why not draft Noel and have him play alongside Noah as your PF? That'd be a pretty awesome defensive tandem.