Jenksismyhero

Fear mongering bulls***. The people in that OK town had 16 minutes of warning about the tornado, which is twice as long as the average warning time. It was a culmination of OK not having very many basements to hide in and the strength of the storm being a rarity. According to WGN, less than 1% of tornadoes are category 4 or 5. This was a 4, for now.

Soooooo, any time Hawks

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 20, 2013 -> 02:42 PM) Revisiting the ‘Crack Babies’ Epidemic That Was Not So, smoking crack while pregnant is ok? Is that the gist of bringing this to light? Media over-reporting/over-sensationalizing something? That's new? Seriously, I don't get the interest here.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ May 20, 2013 -> 02:40 PM) In all seriousness, I fully expect Spurs/Heat. They're the better teams and that series would be signficantly more watchable. Spurs would be run over. Who would stop the Heat fast break?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 20, 2013 -> 03:37 PM) What happened to the days when he would throw in a Click, Funny People (although most consider it way too dark) or Punch Drunk Love every once in a while? Reign Over Me was another different one for him. At one point, Sandler was in talks to star in Quentin Tarantino's World War II film Inglourious Basterds, which he confirmed, but he did not appear in it due to a scheduling conflict with Funny People.[14] Following the release of Funny People, it, along with Punch-Drunk Love were cited in the June 2010 announcement that Sandler was one of 135 people (including 20 actors) invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.[15] He was initially cast in the bachelor-party-themed comedy/thriller Very Bad Things (1998), but had to back out due to his involvement in The Waterboy (1998), one of his first hits. At one point, Sandler was considered for the part that went to Jamie Foxx in Collateral (2004). He also was one of the finalists along with Jim Carrey and Johnny Depp for the role of Willy Wonka in Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). wikipedia Because he still makes a s*** ton of money with those crappy comedies. For Grown Ups according to Wiki - Budget $70 million–$80 million (on WHAT?!), Box office $271,430,189.

LOL. Hollywood has officially run out of ideas:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/second-sons...-experts,97439/ America in 2013 everybody!

Isn't the rumor that he told the two TV show creators how the books are supposed to end in case he dies?

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ May 20, 2013 -> 09:28 AM) Ah, ok.

I went a couple weeks ago to Indian Boundary, a forest preserve course near O'Hare. It's a decent course, nothing special, but wow is it great when no one else is on the course. I played the front 9 with a small group and then played the back 9 on my own. I ended up playing about 16 holes on the back nine (and 2-3 balls each hole) because of the way the course is laid out. You can play a few holes and then take a 5 second drive over to a prior tee box and play them again. I did that twice in 2 places. Had a cigar, a few tall boys, and jammed out to some Spotify on my phone. It was great.

Caught up with two "old" movies with the wife this weekend: 3rd (Nolan) Batman - Solid B+. Probably equal to the first, not quite as good as the second. Yet another awful "voice" though. Maybe it was my TV but Bane's voice was way too clear and separated from everything else around him. It sounded like it was just being played over the movie instead of taking place in the scene with the other actors. Also, for being the main villain his ending was pretty anti-climactic. Still, didn't detract from the movie at all. I liked it a lot. The Hobbit - A-. I don't get the hate. I thought it was great. It was pretty much everything I expected. I still find it ridiculous that they are going to spend 8-9 hours telling that story, but I was engaged the entire time. I also liked how they tied in the LOTR books in key spots. I didn't experience any of the weird filming stuff people complained about in the theaters. Maybe it wasn't as noticeable on my TV or maybe they fixed that for the blu-ray release?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2013 -> 02:45 PM) Ok, all jokes aside, how much do you know about 501©4 groups and what the IRS was actually doing here? Oh please. At a minimum they went way overboard in an attempt to slow/impede these groups from getting their tax status. But really they went beyond that when they basically became an investigative arm finding out donor information. What the f*** does facebook posts or tweets have to do with the application? Not a god damn thing and you know it. You b**** about the GOP blocking political appointees, this is the same s*** but in the tax world.

I think it was pretty nice of those IRS peons that didn't really know about this (but really did), to hold off the story until after the election. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report...ion_724711.html

QUOTE (mr_genius @ May 17, 2013 -> 02:26 PM) I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but the Obama regime has been caught using the IRS to attack political opponents. This is the kind of stuff you see in third world dictatorships. Very disturbing. Meh, that's a GOP tactic. No way Obama was behind this. In fact, I think Bush did it.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 17, 2013 -> 10:23 AM) OK WTF is going on here. the past 3 pages you sound like jenksismyb**** and he sounds like you. Is everybody taking crazy PILLS!!!!! Hey now, I would never stoop so low as to say GoT is uninteresting/unwatchable.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 17, 2013 -> 10:32 AM) Yea I agree with the Parks and Rec comment, that first season was pretty brutal, the characters just didn't find themselves yet. But as soon as season 2 started with that rap by Leslie, you knew they were much more comfortable in their roles and comedy would ensue. Agreed. Starting with season 2 the writers found out who the funny people were going to be (Ron, Andy, Tom and Pawnee generally) and refrained from having Leslie be the main comedic driver like Michael Scott in The Office.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 17, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) I'm just wondering if the show hit its stride in Season 2. Season 1 of Parks & Rec was bad and short as well but has been great ever since. Wondering if the same could be said for The Office. I think it did get better until its peak, when (spoiler!) Jim/Pam got together. After that it's all downhill. It was Steve Carroll playing the role of Michael Scott for 3-4 (5?) more seasons (not a genuinely new and interesting character that you enjoyed watching. It was just Michael Scott doing stupid/embarrassing s*** every episode). Occasionally there was a good episode, but it was average at best. And then it got to be unwatchable once Carroll left and they tried a bunch of gimmicks that failed.

Lions, Hyenas, Wolves, Monkeys, Bees, Clown Fish...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2013 -> 08:25 AM) The Spurs bury the flavor of the month in six games. Curry never looked the same after spraining that ankle.

Lol, my bad

Having no idea what they'll add next year, I'd be happy with a Rose/Butler/Deng/Taj/Noah starting line-up, with Hinrich/Boozer/Belinelli/scrub/scrub leading the 2nd team. If we're going to keep Boozer, put him in a spot where he'll be most useful, and that's with a guy that can set him up like Hinrich. He sucks with Rose.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 16, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) Have not. Wouldn't even attempt. Not into fantasy stuff. Do you like medieval themed stuff? Because it's really more about knights/ladies and castles than fantasy. The fantasy stuff is really on the fringes.

People around college football don't like Delany, but he's been amazing for the Big Ten and the schools.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 16, 2013 -> 09:51 AM) Right, big, dumb brutes turn into self-interested assholes because they can physically dominate others and get their way. Smart-but-slender men don't need to rely on brawn and physical intimidation and actually have empathy for other humans and are more egalitarian. Women don't show any correlation because they're not a bunch of aggressive, violent, self-destructive idiots. (It's an interesting study and I'm spinning as slanted of an interpretation as possible as a joke) More seriously: so it's just a correlation on bicep size and whether or not they support redistributionist policies. I don't know what that's supposed to tell me--it's not like bicep size has been a particularly important factor in physical ability. It's part of the glamour or mirror muscles that some guys like to bulk up while ignoring useful strength and conditioning, and the remaining hunter-gatherer tribesmen don't have 21" guns and 60 inch chests. Landed nobility over history have been particularly anti-redistributive and absolutely deplored any sort of physical work, instead intentionally looking effete. Sounds like this study's argument proves far too much; as far as I know, evolutionary psychology is regarded pretty skeptically by the rest of the biology field anyway. I don't say that because I have a problem with the study's results, if true. I don't and think it's an interesting idea they've tried to examine. I think it's interesting that those that were able to protect X because of their physical strength have evolved politically to want to "protect" their money/property from others/the government. Those that went generations without X because of their physical stature evolved to want the world to be more fair and for people to share what they have. The theory doesn't work for everyone, but on a basic level I can see that being a common view of the respective parties.