Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 15, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) Madden 13 Demo Review is up. Sounds like the same review i've read about this game since about 2000.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/a-romney-fir...93#.UCvRmKCRCWi Obviously polls mean jack at this point, but the trend is interesting.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 15, 2012 -> 09:27 AM) They all do, so it's not a "play". For a guy that's been treated as a "very serious" policy wonk, you aren't taking him very seriously...meaning a lot of others aren't either. So you just contradicted your own attempt to refute what I said. Anyway... Back to reality...they DO all do that, so let's have you stop pretending they don't. We get it, you dislike Ryan. The issue is, you're going out of your way to be unfair in all of your criticism about him...and what's worse, you won't even admit it. So, what your telling us all is every idea Ryan proposes in his plans are ALL bad. Every one of them. When you say things like that, don't expect people to listen further. I enjoy the fact too that this was a proposed budget that would obviously be ripped apart and tweaked through the legislative process, but now both Ryan and Romney are 100% locked-in on that plan no matter what. It's become an all or nothing proposition.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 14, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) You have apparently never heard of bartering. If you've successfully bartered, you didn't do it on your own.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 14, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) They're deliberately obscuring the facts, though. Like when they report the average debt-load for graduates, they only include the third year. Or when they report employment rates, they include law-school-funded clerk jobs paying $15/hour or less. Campos documented both of those recently. It's absolutely shady, but colleges and universities do the same thing.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 14, 2012 -> 11:14 AM) I know out here, when I do on campus recruiting for Deloitte, I'm always very surprised at how much the cost has increased in the past couple of years. Still, I could go to school for 4 years at under 40K. Which is a pretty big bargain. That wouldn't include room/board though. I think my entire college tuition was less then 10K. Albeit I went to a state school and lived at home. That included the cost of books. However, cost/benefit was one of the things I considered in the decision making process. My school was very good at what I wanted to do (business/accounting) and all of the big 4 hire out of here. The problem is most students don't consider and/or know that sort of information. I'm kicking myself for not listening to my parents. I had the option to go to U of I and stay at home. That would have cost like 7-8k a year max. Instead I went to Illinois Wesleyan, a private school in Bloomington that cost 30-35k a year. Luckily my parents paid the majority of it, but I still have debt for that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 14, 2012 -> 11:08 AM) Only something like 1/3 of ABA-accredited law school graduates actually land a job that requires an ABA-accredited law degree out of school. There's been a bunch of people in the blogosphere, both left and right and otherwise (e.g. Volokh, Paul Campos) documenting how expensive law school has become, how bad the prospects for graduates are and how much the colleges hide the true facts from prospective students. To be fair to the law schools, they're doing nothing different than colleges. I'm not sure it's their responsibility on applications to warn people that the job market sucks. The job market sucks for everything. But I do have a problem with the entire law school curriculum. Frankly law school is unnecessary. A college pre-law program would be sufficient to prepare you, since what you learn is mostly a waste anyway. Unlike college you're not getting the social life experience to go along with the education. Med school makes sense - you learn medicine, you get placed into a residency program, then you find a job. Like teaching there's a hands-on portion to it. In law school it's just learn the law, the majority of which you will never, ever need to know and if you did you do what every lawyer does anyway - you research. There are no hands-on programs unless you're lucky enough to get a clerk gig.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 14, 2012 -> 09:53 AM) Not "less taxing the rich," NO taxing the rich. Romney himself said that his tax rate would be less than 1% under Ryan's plan. At the same time, his cuts would overwhelmingly hit the poorest Americans the hardest and wouldn't be kind to the middle class either. Is your vision of government one limited almost solely to Social Security, Medicare and Defense? Because that's all that Ryan's budget leaves down the road in order to finally balance* thanks to his massive tax cuts. *still relies on magic unemployment and trillions in unspecified cuts and tax expenditure eliminations, though Tax on capital gains and interest is ludicrous to begin with, but I agree at least in today's economy it's a bad move to totally get rid of it. Again, i'm fine upping the capital gains and interest tax for those people that make a certain threshold of money from their investments (i.e., hitting the rich, not your middle class investor). And hopefully that gets ironed out of whatever budget plan eventually gets passed. And yeah, throw in infrastructure and i'm good with limiting the federal government to just a few things like defense. States should be responsible for most of the rest.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 14, 2012 -> 09:40 AM) Understanding the Ryan plan I really don't get why the media fauns over Ryan as some sort of serious intellectual budget wonk. His "plan" relies on magic numbers, hilarious unemployment rates, massive unspecified spending cuts, massive unspecified tax expenditure cuts and, on top of all of that, expansionary defense spending and elimination of taxes for the .1%. Because he's the only one that has come up with any plan, even if it's not a perfect one? Edit: and i'm not saying i agree with the plan as proposed. There are things I don't like (more military spending, less taxing the rich).

Semantics. The alderman said he'd deny the permit, then this thing blew up in his face. It'll be denied, on different grounds, but we all know CFA was effectively banned from opening a store in that spot.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 13, 2012 -> 10:40 AM) 1) Once again you arent seeing the equivalence. SSM is actually banned, CFA is not banned. I can say I want to do something, that doesnt mean I can actually do it. You keep saying the Mayor of Chicago did this that and the other, but the actual facts are CFA is operating today. 2) Mayors are clowns, there is nothing new with this. 3) My argument isnt flawed at all. It wasnt an insult against you, it was a conclusion about your statement. Are you that PC? Farmteam basically covered this. You can be the smartest person in the world and make a terrible argument. The hope is that if you are smart, you will see the weakness of your argument and change. If I wanted to attack someone, it would be apparent. They were denied a permit, right? Can't build a store where they wanted to, right? Pretty sure that's the equivalent of being banned.

We use the lot closest to the metra station ("C" maybe?). Free, fast and easy. Leaving the show you sometimes have to wait 10 minutes or so for a bus, but it's all very convenient. One of the cool parts about the venue IMO.

For the Bulls front office apologists: http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bulls/post...-talks-till-end We were trying! We just have s***ty trade assets!

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) and yet I'd bet a large amount of them are making more than the 38k median wage. They told us out of law school (2008) that the median salary in chicago for a new lawyer was 43k. Which yes, is higher than the national average, but the 100k in school debt is about 800 bucks a month out of your pay. Edit: also, if you work in a small firm (which most do) you're not going to get any benefits - health insurance, 401k, etc. Edit 2: and because of the number of new attorneys being churned out year after year, the salary demands are dropping like crazy. There are people fighting for $30k a year jobs. And lawyers by nature are absolute cheap-asses, so if you can hire a new lawyer for pennies (and you can in this job market) you're going to do it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 11:35 AM) Another meme for you meme haters. Speaking of, I didn't realize how much the US has crushed the world at the games. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olym...mes_medal_table

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 10:33 AM) That depends... It's ok to put yourself into debt for college *IF* you are going to college for something useful to the world around you. For example, going into debt to become a nuclear engineer is a bit different from going to be a ... psychologist. One of the two will probably have an infinitely easier time repaying their student loan debt. That's the conventional thinking that's no longer accurate. There was another article out there recently (yahoo finance?) that talked about the number of "good jobs" (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc) decreasing year over year. SO many people these days have degrees and those jobs are becoming harder and harder to come by. The harder it is to get a job, the more competition, the lower the salary. Yes, you'll make more than the average person, but you have a ton of debt so all that gain is a wash. And the problem is only going to get worse.

Good read on how college debt is about to be a bigger problem: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bernanke-jus...stability-issue This crap is just not sustainable. My generation and younger are putting themselves in so much debt with little hope of paying it off. My wife and I are at about $160k. I guess in 20 years it'll be nice to have that extra income to pay for a vacation home, or more likely to pay for a semester of my kids' college tuition.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 02:46 AM) This is exactly what I'm looking for! If you want a bunch of hot single women ready to party, go to bourbon street. Nothing but drunkenness and good times are had there.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 10, 2012 -> 08:13 AM) This is why voting has become an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. We tend to put a lot more blame/credit on the presidents desk than they deserve. It's of my opinion that it doesn't matter if Obama or Romney win, the Senate/Congress either will have to deal with will be pretty much the same mix of bad meets evil...and it's what's truly broken in our system. We like to blame presidents, past and present, for 90% of what the houses of congress do. In theory this was how the system was designed, in practice, especially modern times, the President initiates just about every major legislative effort. He's the spokesperson for the side either for or against something.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) I'll agree to call that a lie if you can agree that completely fabricating your opponent's position is a bigger step than that misleading ad. edit: the P-USA ad may be comparable to something like the Willy Horton ad in terms of honest portrayal of the truth. The Romney ad is in its own category. I think campaigning about the responsibility of someones death without a bit of truth to back it up is just as bad if not worse. Politicians lie about the extreme hypothetical that come with certain policies. Palin and her death panel is another good one. From a moral standpoint I feel like that's just par for the course. But pinning someones death on your business practice? Come on...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fi...c161d_blog.html It's admitted in the ad she wasn't diagnosed until 2006. The plant went bankrupt in 2001. I think Politico had the exact date, I can't remember where I read that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2012 -> 04:49 PM) So they didn't LITERALLY claim that Romney gave her cancer. I don't know why you said that. So there's distortion or misstatements or obfuscation, I'll grant that for the sake of argument. But the core message, that this man lost his job and his health insurance because of Bain, is arguably true. It may not be a completely honest portrayal, but the message is built around some factual claim. No, this is different. There is literally nothing to back up Romney's claim that Obama is gutting welfare rules. It is the exact opposite of reality. The message was not that the guy lost his health insurance, but that his wife died because of what Romney did. That's a straight up lie. She didn't even know she had cancer until 2 days before she died. AND, she had her own health insurance from her own job. The guy losing his job and his health insurance had NOTHING to do with her death. Nothing. If you don't think that's a lie, I don't think we agree on the definition of the word.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 9, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) No, not like that, because they did not LITERALLY claim that Romney gave someone cancer. I don't know why you said that. They may have exaggerated or distorted (don't know), but that's typical for campaign commercials. That's different from just completely making something up like with this welfare rule thing. Romney's campaign is flat-out lying over and over again. Not exaggerations, not s***ty reasoning, not misrepresentations, but things that they've completely made up. They said Mitt Romney got a guy fired which caused him to lose health insurance which resulted in the death of his cancer-stricken wife because she couldnt' get medical treatment. The reality was that she didn't know she had cancer until two days before she died, FIVE YEARS after he was fired. One LITERALLY had nothing to do with the other. Yet that was the accusation. That's the exact same thing. ZERO truth to it. Completely fabricated. And the only reason Obama's campaign is now saying they're sorry is that someone called them on their bulls***, otherwise they would have accepted the benefits of the negative ad. (Not at all backing Romney or Newt. Just saying it's f'n politics man, at this point people should know that everything a politician says is complete and utter bulls***, ESPECIALLY during a campaign.) Edit: Sorry, my original post was wrong. I meant to say the accusation was that Romney killed her, not gave her cancer. It's almost 5!

Kinda like when Obama's campaign knew one of his Super Pac ads blatantly lied when they LITERALLY claimed that Mitt Romney gave someone cancer and killed them. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08...ory-131577.html

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Aug 9, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) I have a coworker who plays it, and I've watched him livestream play it. It has quite a few glitches and problems that I've seen. Oh yeah, it's buggy, but it's not even in beta yet. It'll only get better as time goes on. And yes, the game is intimidating, but that's part of the fun. There are no "rails" to follow. It's you and the world. I saw some guy on IGN found a map, so hopefully I can find one.