Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 16, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) Have you seen evidence that I havent that proves this? I think impregnating at least one of the girls is abuse enough...

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ May 16, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) Ariel Castro to plead not guilty. I understand that he has the right to a fair trail and he's innocent until proven guilty but what is the purpose here? Is he really going to try to convince people that he is innocent? Not to mention the 3 women that will have to testify against him and re-live the horrors of the last 10 years. This quote from one of his lawyers was interesting: From what I've read, this guy is really good at not letting people know what kind of person he really is. His brothers didn't know, his daughter didn't know, his neighbors didn't know... He might. But it's probably more about proving he doesn't deserve a certain level of punishment.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2013 -> 12:41 PM) In 2014/2015, the Bulls have under contract: Rose: $19 million Noah: $13 million Gibson: $8 million Butler + Teague: $3 million Boozer: $17 million. Deng and Hinrich have both expired by then. If we assume the salary cap is ~$60 million by next year, that could leave the bulls with $42 million of cap space taken for 2014/2015, plus maybe $1.5 million more for this year's draftee. If Boozer is amnesthetized at that point, the Bulls couldbe $10-$20 million under the cap and able to offer a large deal to a free agent player. Maybe not a max deal, but could be close. They'd also be able to use some of that space for their European monster we've been waiting on. I hope they trade Deng this summer. Maybe use him as part of a package to get someone like Love. Deng's going to want a lot more money (and years) than he's worth in 2014.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 16, 2013 -> 12:28 PM) He was on Cowherd this morning advocating they go after Kevin Love. Only if they take Boozer in the deal. Get that guy out of here. He's had some great games, and has great skill, but he's one of the dumbest/most annoying players I've ever watched. Edit: speaking of Boozer, can someone explain to me why it makes more sense to amnesty Boozer next summer instead of this summer? If you're going to wait until his last year, wouldn't he become a pretty valuable trade asset (expiring contract)? Why would you amnesty him other than to save paying another year of his salary?

Friedell with his annual "yeah but the Bulls still aren't good enough" column. http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bulls/post...-cant-beat-heat I think that's partly true, but in games 3 and 5 of this series (in which Miami was playing 3rd string starters), the Bulls got a decent lead and then Thibs decided to play defense instead of maintaining the offense. It was the same f'n script - get up by 6-8, throw in Taj and take out Marco and Boozer, and watch the lead get pissed away because the Bulls have no offensive threat on the floor other than Nate. The Bulls don't have Lebron, that's the real difference. They don't get the luxury of being able to commit offensive fouls on every drive and then get the reach/block/hack foul on the defense to get to the line. That's the real difference. I'm not sure what GarPax can do about that, even if they were able to sign another superstar. The Thunder suffered from the same problem last year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2013 -> 12:10 PM) Then again I ask, do you think the system currently setup is working well? Because it does exactly what you ask for. Significant punishments, financial and emotional, for people who are caught. They get the lecture you demand they get, they get the moral disapproval you demand they get. Maybe you want more mandatory jail time when someone is caught DUI or something like that, but basically, I take it you think the current setup is fine. I'm sure there might be small ways to improve it, but yeah, I think the current set up is about as good as we're going to get. I like Shack's idea of having devices in cars, but that's probably not workable right now. Penalties are harsh enough as-is. Making them harsher won't change the behavior. And Government Cab Company isn't feasible for the majority of the country.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2013 -> 11:52 AM) And you'd be fully within your rights to blame them for making a dumb decision. That just can't be the basis for a rational policy discussion. If drunk driving is a no-tolerance crime, I don't see how you could allow any sort of justification into the discussion. It's irrelevant.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ May 16, 2013 -> 11:04 AM) No, that's not the point I'm arguing, but you just keep on ignoring the fact that you made one of the stupidest statements I've ever read in that people have all the control over alcohol. Oh please. The vast majority do. And even alcoholics had to start somewhere. Some knew they had alcoholism in the family and still chose to drink. Playing the "oh it's an addiction" card is a lame attempt at justifying stupid behavior. If you're an addict, go get help. Try to control it as best you can. You're right, my statement shouldn't have been in absolute terms, but my statement is still accurate for the vast majority of people. If you have one drink, you can control how many more you have when making a decision on driving later in the evening. My family has alcoholics too and if one of them got a DUI I wouldn't say "oh, well I guess that's OK because you have an addiction." I'd still blame them for making a dumb decision, which was my original point. It's not the alcohol, it's the person.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:57 AM) You stated people have all the control over alcohol, which coming from a family with a history of alcoholism, pisses me the f*** off because it's so untrue. Are alcoholics forced to drive after they drink?

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:51 AM) Yea let's just pretend like addiction isn't a real thing. Be addicted all you want, do it in your own home and don't drive. Edit: and let's be real here, the true addicts are a very small percent of the DUI crowd we're talking about here. Most DUI's are normal people that make a dumb decision, a decision that is 100% avoidable.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:44 AM) I can't believe you're an attorney and you would make this argument... I'm just saying, I hate when people talk about alcohol like it's this uncontrollable product that's inherently dangerous. Individuals have all the power over alcohol. YOU choose where you drink, YOU choose how much you drink, etc.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:38 AM) ? If you use alcohol properly - i.e., don't drink until you're black out drunk and then drive - and you do so in an appropriate place, there's no danger even if you become intoxicated. It's a safe product to use. I was intoxicated last night in my home watching the Bulls/Hawks and I didn't kill anyone.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:34 AM) The problem with that logic is that when it is used properly, it intoxicates you...which inhibits your ability to do most things as well as you would without it. Even if it does, so long as you do it at a place where you intend to stay a while, it's perfectly safe.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:03 AM) So you're content with the status quo? Because clearly telling everyone to enforce this on their own and then jailing 1% of the people who don't listen works, right? I know what you're getting at, but you're deflecting blame of the person making a bad decision to the alcohol itself. "Oh, well after 4 beers my mind was kind of gone SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING." Bulls***, you made a conscious choice and now you deal with it. The effects of alcohol is not a justification for driving drunk. Alcohol is like anything else that's dangerous - when used properly, it's perfectly fine. When you mix in morons that make dumb choices (we've all done it and realize we're morons when we do it) the blame is on us, not alcohol.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) Not why they did it, they thought it would be "too distracting" for boys. So of course, girls must change their behavior. Plus heavy girls can wear strapless dresses without a problem. My friend's wedding dress was strapless, and she's worn several strapless bridesmaid dresses. But they don't look nearly as good as those anorexic models wearing strapless dresses! Edit: they cited fear of wardrobe malfunctions. I'd like to see the numbers from a study on that. I used to get down with the best of them in 8th grade, but not enough to get a dress off. I can't imagine that happens all that often (if ever).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:17 AM) We went through a short sale, but we got lucky because the process had already been started but the previous buyer couldn't get a loan. We still had some back-and-forth (there were two companies with an interest in the property), but that aspect went pretty smoothly. Were you able to get all the appropriate disclosures? I know that's an issue buying foreclosed homes, not sure about short sales.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 16, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) Some schools have banned strapless dresses for dances because, you know, sluts or something. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/...jersey/2133117/ Well, you don't want the fat girls to feel ashamed/embarrassed/self-conscious about THEIR dresses.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2013 -> 09:38 AM) No...but your decision making might be impaired enough to decide you can order that 4th or 5th drink and still drive home. Then stop at 1 or 2. The point is that everyone knows their limit and getting beyond that is a willful choice.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 16, 2013 -> 09:41 AM) Assuming the study 1) says what the Daily Mail says it says and 2) is worth a s***, the conclusion I choose to draw is that big, dumb brutes who only know how to express themselves through violence and physical intimidation take right-wing reactionary political stances. See, that could easily be spun against you! You just don't get it. Edit: Here's the study: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abs...fer_share=e3039

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 15, 2013 -> 07:34 PM) Congrats shack! Will need some pics when it's finalized! Anyone ever go through a short sale? So far all the best places tend to be short sales where I'm looking. I haven't but my friends recently did and it sounded like a pain. At the end of the day they got a pretty good deal though. You just have to know going in the process takes forever since you're dealing with a large bank, not a person/couple.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2013 -> 09:04 AM) That's completely moronic. People being "too drunk to realize they are too drunk to drive" is completely asinine. When you've had ten beers, you know you shouldn't be driving. When you're hammered, you know it. You still make that choice. I've done it. Not proud of it, but I've done it. I've also realized the entire time I was driving that if I were to get pulled over I'd be completely f***ed. I don't do it anymore, but I have. And I also knew what I was doing was wrong. EDIT AND STUPID Or even after 3 you should realize "hey, this isn't going in the right direction. I have to drive later so I should stop." I go through that routine once a weekend.

I've been saying this for years, glad science finally backs me up: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-...ical-views.html

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2013 -> 09:07 AM) You sound like a woman. GoT is awesome. I wish they'd cut out the pointless boobs so people like you wouldn't have that crutch to fall back on as your single line of defense as to why people like the show. I don't fit the typical fantasy-loving fanboy model either. I've never seen Lord of the Rings. However, I can say I geek out every Sunday (or more likely Monday morning at the gym with my tablet and a lot of sweat). It's a political thriller more than fantasy. Though I do miss Dany being naked in every episode. The Theon scene last week was pretty nice.

Fun game to watch, especially the third period.

So glad this season is over.