Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 09:30 AM) None of those quotes say what you said earlier though. Yes, Dems have railed against income inequality and have hammered at some of the issues on Wall Street to push that argument. But if you specifically argued that the Dems have made people with money the enemy. And that is very much not what either Clinton the candidate or Obama the President have done or said. Dana O'Neil out, one of the bigger college bball writers.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 05:55 PM) Cite for some of this? I mean, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Obama did very well in '08 and '12 fundraising from Wall Street. He also was President when some of the tougher regulations of Wall Street were passed! If we are being very general on the policies of the respective political parties, it's that the Democrats are in favor of greater regulation of industry, blaming corporate greed for things like the '08 financial crisis. The Republicans, by contrast, think that government should get out of the way of business as the job creation engine. The Democrats believe in government safety nets and want to fund that by raising taxes on top earners. The Republicans believe that cutting taxes to the top tax brackets stimulates the economy. At no point did the Obama administration make "people with money the enemy." The Clinton campaign and the Obama administration pitched a narrative of government as a check on corporate greed, and on raising taxes on the wealthy. And (gets on soapbox) this is the absolute worst part of political discourse. Nothing above is actual policy. It's broad generalizations that one side of the political aisle made people with money the enemy, and that accepting money from Wall Street makes the Democrats anti-protections for the little guy... This took 3 seconds to find. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/mo...unds/index.html I'm sure there are hundreds of examples from both that I can find, but I'm not going to waste the time. You've been living in a bubble if you don't think Dems have railed against the rich and Wall Street while the Repubs tend to protect them. Hell, basic fiscal policy positions tell that story. And yes, ALL politicians do well from Wall Street, which is why it's a joke when Dem candidates pretend like they aren't financially connected.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 04:49 PM) Why does being for "Main Street" mean you can't also work with Wall Street? I mean, when the stock market does well, that's good for millions of American's retirements, not just for hedge fund managers. Can Obama not bring up progressive policies when he's giving a $400k speech to Goldman Sachs? I thought it was dumb that Hillary Clinton got dinged for this, and I think it's silly if this hurts Obama's message in the future. I'll be disappointed in Obama if come 2018 he's still doing the vacation/book deal/speaking tour to the detriment of using his wealth and celebrity for good. But that's not how Obama and Hillary campaigned. They made people with money the enemy. They made Wall Street the enemy. The claimed (falsely) that only the GOP had connections to Wall Street. Oh, Romney's just a rich guy, he can't help the everyday American. Same with Trump. It's been a party line for decades. And now he's playing nice with them? Now he's schmoozing with them for $400k for a day's work? That message of being the party that helps the little guy gets deflated.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 03:00 PM) Yeah, this is one of those issues where I really don't see the outrage. Obama can both provide a lot of positive value to underserved communities AND earn money speaking on Wall Street. But maybe I'm not seeing the forest for the trees. Doesn't it look bad for a guy that tried to be the "every man" and pretend like he was for Main Street, not Wall Street? At least he's doing it AFTER his political career, but still. He'll be endorsing people in the future. Hillary got knocked for this big time and through political osmosis Dems will be hurt by it too. Tough to trumpet the BS line that only the GOP is in the pockets of Wall Street when two of the biggest names in the party do the same thing (this obviously assumes that Obama will continue with a speaking tour ala the Clintons).

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 10:09 AM) What policies have Democrats pushed in Trump's first 100 days that would cause people on the fence to move to Trump? Doesn't have to be the first 100 days, it's the platform generally that Democrats offer/offered. SS2k5 posted somewhere else that Democrats and Independents don't believe the Democratic party represents their interests, more so than conservatives and the GOP. So you have Repubs that like Trump despite not agreeing or liking his decisions because at least he's not a Democrat, and you have Dems and Independents that don't like the Democratic party because they don't feel like the party adequately represents their interests. At some point the logical conclusion is that for a lot of people, they aren't buying what the Democrats are selling. edit: here was the quote from what SS2k5 was citing to:

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Apr 25, 2017 -> 09:17 AM) These are the people that are saying they would vote for him now. Then there are the few that say they would vote for Trump just because they don't like the people that are against trump. Maybe, MAYBE Democrats should consider the notion that people don't totally agree with their platform/policies? Maybe?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 24, 2017 -> 05:05 PM) And just to touch on this for the last time: My point was not to shut anyone here down about their views on misogyny/Bernie/women's issues - I was just saying that it seems fruitless to have a conversation about all of those issues without including ANY female perspectives and voices. The difference between what I said, and what SS is trying to correlate, is that that conversation was happening between a group of many women and a few men, where at least the sides are represented. For a bunch of white guys to debate whether or not something is or isn't misogynist seems....... fundamentally flawed. Kinda like a bunch of white people trying to tell black people what is/isn't racist. But people still do it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 24, 2017 -> 04:52 PM) Yes, and let's invalidate that it's the context of the BLM movement that makes those videos so particularly poignant. We're talking about BLM right now, so obviously they've done a great job at becoming a household name. And every time another video like that comes out it re-validates and re-energizes the movement. It's a symbiotic relationship. Those videos spread like wildfire because of the heightened awareness and societal context, and in return they strengthen the movement, which gives each new video more power. It's a cycle. Or do you think it's a coincidence that all these videos have come out SINCE the BLM movement began? The movement makes the videos that much more sensationalist for news media outlets, so they love it - and that's why we've seen more of them. Nah, those videos are still damning with or without BLM. And it's not a coincidence that those videos came out after the BLM movement. It lines up with the availability of affordable technology that gives everyone a video camera in their pocket.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 24, 2017 -> 04:31 PM) But I think it has made progress. Police forces across the country are being forced to have stricter oversight, body cameras, etc, etc. The cop from GA that decked a black guy in the face and kicked him for no reason was fired immediately. These are all steps in the right direction, and are only happening because of BLM. Is it because of BLM or media coverage + technology (the ability to have video from just about anywhere)?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 24, 2017 -> 02:39 PM) blah blah blah get off my lawn blah blah blah alternative facts This post has been edited by a Soxtalk Administrator since it violates board policy. Name calling will not be tolerated, and can result in suspension or banning. Warning for all parties: name calling and personal insults are off limits, stop or you will be suspended.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 23, 2017 -> 08:00 PM) Sitting watching Hoiberg go small, taking away the only advantage the bulls have So dumb

Annnnndddddd I'm done.

Where has Lopez been the last 2 games?

Niko with his patented unnecessary touch foul.

Can someone just knock Thomas on his ass? If your going to foul him on a drive, foul him. Enough with this weak s***.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 23, 2017 -> 05:48 PM) Niko and Grant have been extra special bad Add MCW to the list. You can tell Wade and Butler hate playing with him. I still find it hard to believe that Valentine isn't a better option. At least he can hit some threes. He'll spread the floor for others.

Or even Rondo in a cast.

My God, MCW and Grant are horrific. Valentine isn't a better option??

Well, at least they came back to make it a game.

What. The. f***.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 19, 2017 -> 01:47 PM) Exactly. Game theory only works if you have all like minded people. Most people would walk away for WAY less than $10k. I know I would. Almost instinctively I read this in Will Ferrell's Harry Caray voice.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 19, 2017 -> 01:56 PM) CSN Chicago‏Verified account @CSNChicago 2h2 hours ago Exclusive from @vgoodwill: The hour-long meeting between Butler, Wade and Rondo that led to #Bulls' Game 2 victory - http://bit.ly/2oVKZmQ Good read and good to know they're getting along.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 19, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) Are the Celtics the worst #1 seed in NBA history? The Bulls are obviously not the worst #8 seed, but they are an average NBA team. I look at the Celtics, and besides IT, I'm wondering how they win over 50 games. For all the praise Ainge gets, he may have pulled a Pax with Butler. They have no shot at winning a title currently. The draft picks are going to have to hit big. Even if you hit big, those picks are still 2-3 seasons away from providing you meaningful minutes. Horford (overrated), Thomas (too short to be meaningful in the final minutes) and Bradley (too inconsistent) will be on the wrong end of their prime by that point too.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 18, 2017 -> 06:47 PM) But now injured while committing a crime, either. 98% of the world and 90% of lawyers believe United was in the wrong. Have you ever served on a jury? Or been involved in litigation in anyway?

Holy crap do they look good. They sucked me back in. Dammit.